The story notes new screening guidelines and methods of detecting Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities earlier in pregnancy. The story explains why pregnant women of any age may wish to be screened. The story does not provide enough information on the downside or risks of these earlier methods of screening, and genetic counseling, including counseling about the risks of screening, is not mentioned. The story does not mention the cost of the early screening or multiple screenings, or if these are covered by health insurance.
The story engages in test mongering. Testing for Down's syndrome may now be recommended for all pregnant women, regardless of age, but it does not always provide "peace of mind", as a positive result may mean a decision for more invasive testing and/or the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Sources cited in the story may be [or are likely] biased towards screening [all/most] pregnant women for Down's syndrome and other chromosomal defects. The story quotes ACOG committee members (ACOG established the new guidelines) and a physician affiliated with the March of Dimes. Not screening for chromosomal abnormalities during pregnancy is still an option for women, so a physician or patient could be cited to explain the rationale for this decision, providing some balance to the story.
The story does provide the rationale for the change in screening guidelines, that is, why age 35 is no longer a benchmark for determining who should receive screening for Down syndrome, but there is no quantitative evidence for the recommendations for earlier and wider screening. In the context of the "testing is good" flavor, there needs to be some better sense of ability to find the target condition as well as risk of mis-labeling a normal pregnancy.
If screening is available, sonographer/physician skill and training have a large effect on reliability. This point is not addressed in the story. The story does not mention the rate of false negatives or false positives of newer methods of screening. The story also does not mention how many women have an amniocentesis after a positive result with the earlier screening.
The story notes that a woman with a positive Down’s result who chooses not to terminate her pregnancy may need to plan for specialized care at birth based on further ultrasound evaluation of anatomy. Finally, the story does not mention that children and adults with Down's syndrome can lead full lives, despite having health and learning problems.
The story does not mention the cost of the early screening or multiple screenings. The story also does not mention if health insurance covers the cost of the newer methods of screening for Down syndrome.
The story only mentions that women will know earlier if her fetus shows signs of Down syndrome. The story does not provide good data on the specificity of the earlier screening tests or how many women choose to end their pregnancies if they are given a positive result. The story does not provide enough information about benefits of screening, which need to be available to weigh in the context of cost, accuracy, and potential harms.
The story minimizes the harms of testing. The story does list the risk of miscarriage with amniocentisis, but does not mention the risks with newer tests. The story does not provide much detail on the specificity of the newer tests, but says they are "80 percent accurate". We are not told how this compares to older methods of screening. The story also does not mention the rate of false negatives or false positives of newer methods of screening, such as nuchal translucency. The story says that earlier screening would provide women with "peace of mind", which may not be true in the case of a positive test. The decision to terminate a pregnancy–one option with a positive result–may be difficult for many women. This is not mentioned in the story. The story only notes that women with a positive Down's screening will need to plan for specialized care at delivery. Specialized pediatric care and other support services may be needed long after delivery and the post-partum period.
The story should be given credit for providing the rationale for the change in screening guidelines, that is, why age 35 is not longer a benchmark for determining who is screened for chromosomal abnormalities in pregnancy. However, the story does not provide any quantitative evidence for the change in recommended earlier screening. In the context of the "testing is good" flavor, there needs to be some better sense of ability to find the target condition as well as risk of mis-labeling a normal pregnancy. The story does not mention the rate of false positives or false negatives with the newer, first-trimester screenings. The story also does not mention how many women have an amniocentesis after a positive result.
The story engages in test mongering. Testing for Down's syndrome may now be recommended for all pregnant women, regardless of age, but it does not always provide "peace of mind" and a woman should know that a positive result would mean a decision for more invasive testing and possibly the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The article caught the cultural current that dictates that all biomedical information is good and of course everyone will want testing. It over-amplified the significance of the results.
Additionally, detection of Down syndrome does not mean a woman must terminate her pregnancy. The story does not mention that children and adults with Down's syndrome can lead full lives, despite having health and learning problems.
Sources cited in the story may be [or are likely] biased towards screening [all/most] pregnanct women for Down's syndrome and other chromosomal defects. The story quotes ACOG committee members (ACOG established the new guidelines) and a physician affiliated with the March of Dimes. Not screening for Down's during pregnancy is still an option for women, so a physician or patient could be cited to explain the rationale for this decision, providing some balance to the story.
The story mentions earlier methods of screening, as well as amniocentesis for detecting Down's syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities in pregnancy. However, the piece only partially fulfllls the criteria by listing or alluding to these tests, but does not attempt to provide any sense of direct comparison among options.
The story notes that not all of the newer methods of early screening, such as nuchal translucency, are available in all hospitals, as they require specialized training. If screening is available, sonographer/physician skill and training have a large effect on reliability. This point is not addressed in the story.
The story notes that screening guidelines for women younger than age 35 have changed. The story also covers changes in recommendations as new, while pointing out that in some locations nuchal translucency has been in use for more than a decade.
The story conducts independent reporting and does not rely solely on a press release for information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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