Our Review Summary
- The first sentence mentions “A slightly higher risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer” but two lines later we’re told this “wasn’t statistically significant.” So why was it in the lead? And why state it as a definitively “slightly higher risk”?
- The story converts 61% (false positives from annual screening) into “more than half” but then gives the actual percentage – 42% who had false positives from biennial screening. “More than half” could be 51% or higher. That was too vague and unhelpful.
- The story frames this “as the latest volley in an ongoing debate.” Not really. This was science at work – a new study published in a journal.
- The story says the US Preventive Services Task Force 2009 mammography recommendations “startled the world.” Not really. It didn’t startle anyone who follows this science closely.
Why This Matters
The framing of this story was odd and troubling. Rather than build in drama (“latest volley…startled the world”), journalists would be better off giving the data and getting out of the way with flowery phrases.
The critical question is whether you can do less frequent screening, subject women to fewer harms and get similar results in terms of detection of
“early stage” cancer. This study’s data seems to suggest that answer is yes.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The article fails to provide any information about the psychological & financial costs that result from false-positive mammography recalls & false-positive recommendations for biopsy.
Not Satisfactory
This article focused on the significant reduction in false-positive mammograms among women who are screened for breast cancer every two years rather than every year.
Rather than stating that “more than half who received annual mammograms were called back at least once because of a false-positive,” it would help readers to know that the percentage was actually 61.3%.
And it was misleading in the lead sentence to say “but the trade-off is a slightly higher risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer…” while qualifying that two lines later – “But the increase in breast cancer diagnoses wasn’t statistically significant.”
Not Satisfactory
This piece briefly noted the anxiety caused by recall mammography but failed to point out that recall mammography may also cause inconvenience & that biopsies cause pain & scarring. The article should also have mentioned the financial costs of recall mammograms & of biopsies.
The competing WebMD piece did mention anxiety, inconvenience, pain & scarring.
Not Satisfactory
The article should have stated that few women underwent screening for the entire 10-year period and that the recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms.
Satisfactory
There is no disease-mongering.
Satisfactory
The piece includes a relevant quote about the benefits of the study from Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.
Satisfactory
The article did remain focused on the key information regarding the reduction in false-positive recall mammograms & recommendations for biopsy that result from undergoing screening mammography biennally rather than annually.
Because readers are appropriately concerned about any possible effect less frequent screening may have on stage at diagnosis, this article should have included the crucial information that the slightly higher risk of being diagnosed with a later stage breast cancer was statistically insignificant. That important fact was not addressed until two paragraphs after mentioning the higher risk. Readers who read only the first paragraph or who skim an article may have easily missed the clarifying information about statistical significance in the third paragraph.
Not Applicable
Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States.
Not Applicable
This is not a new procedure.
Satisfactory
This article includes a quote from the Principal Investigator, Rebecca Hubbard, Ph.D & from a breast surgeon. It clearly does not rely solely on a press release.
Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like