The story describes a new recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advising that aspirin and other similar drugs not be taken for prevention of colon cancer in people at average risk. The story does appropriately describe the natural history or disease burden of colon cancer without obvious embellishments or overstatements, but many other criteria were not met. Areas that were lacking included: a discussion of the actual evidence on which the recommendation is based, quantification of the potential benefits, a description of how frequent or severe harms might be, a source that was clearly independent of the study or panel, and a description of alternate colon cancer prevention approaches, like screening and follow-up of any abnormal screening results, particularly given the fact that the story is about a potential prevention approach that is now not advised. So what else is there? Readers are not given much context here.
The article doesn't mention costs of taking aspirin or other such drugs for colon cancer prevention, but most people know they are not costly.
The story does not quantify any benefits. While it's stated that the benefits don't outweigh the risks, readers have no idea what the chance of benefit (or risks) actually are.
The major risks associated with taking aspirin or other similar drugs for colon cancer prevention are provided, but there is no indication of how frequent or severe these may be.
The article presents no evidence whatsoever for the panel's recommendation. Readers don't know the strength of the evidence that supports such a recommendation nor anything about the panel itself (made up of 16 primary care physicians with recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care).
The article appropriately describes the disease burden of colon cancer. There is no obvious disease mongering.
The story uses only one source and it's not clear whether he is part of the panel or not.
The story mentions that people over 50 should be screened for colon cancer, but does not explain how this can be done. Nor does it does it describe what followup on any abnormal screening result would be. This is important since this story is about a potential prevention approach that is now not advised. So what else is there? Readers are not given much context here.
Most people would know that these medications can be purchased over the counter with ease.
The article doesn't describe the novelty of using aspirin or other similar drugs for preventing colon cancer. While it talks about this practice in previous research studies, it isn't clear whether this was a common practice in real-life, an FDA-approved use of these drugs, or whether this was recommended by other groups or doctors prior to this panel's recommendation.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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