Ovarian cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to find and treat early. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that there are no good screening tests and that the symptoms are vague and easily attributed to other causes. This story reports on new recommendations being issued by a group of cancer advocates to make women aware of the symptoms and urge them to get treatment if these symptoms come on suddenly and persist for two weeks or more. This story does accurately describe the symptoms and explains why this may be important, but does very little to actually inform the viewer.
The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence to support whether early intervention in women with this combination of symptoms results in better outcomes. The story does not comment on potential harms of the recommendations. The story should have discussed the very high numbers of women who will have these symptoms but not have ovarian cancer. Given that these symptoms are very vague, this is a big concern.
The story continually refers to the combination of symptoms as if it is truly "new" information. The truth is, these symptoms have been known for a long time. What is novel is that advocacy groups have formalized recommendations on evaluating women with these symptoms and seemed to have organized a campaign to raise awareness.
Finally, although the story mentions the survival rate for early versus late stage ovarian cancer, this is not adequate information on the benefit of treatment. The story should have provided more information on what percentage of women with these symptoms will indeed have ovarian cancer and what percentage will not. Although it may not yet be known what the benefit is of intervening in women with these symptoms, the story could have commented on this.
For the same reasons above, costs are also not applicable. However, the costs of the diagnostic tests that would occur as a result of these recommendations could have been acknowledged.
Although the story mentions the survival rate for early versus late stage ovarian cancer, this is not adequate information on the benefit of treatment. The story should have provided more information on what percentage of women with these symptoms will indeed have ovarian cancer and what percentage will not. Although it may not yet be known what the benefit is of intervening in women with these symptoms, the story could have commented on this.
The story does not comment on potential harms of the recommendations. The story should have discussed the very high numbers of women who will have these symptoms but not have ovarian cancer. Given that these symptoms are very vague, this is a big concern.
The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence to support whether early intervention in women with this combination of symptoms results in better outcomes.
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of ovarian cancer.
The story does not quote any experts other than the medical correspondent. Other clinicians or experts could have been very valuable in explaining how these new recommendations fit with existing clinical practice.
Although the story mentions in passing a simple exam, ultrasound and a blood test as alternatives, this is not enough information.
Because this story concerns a grouping of symptoms as a sign of ovarian cancer, availability of treatment is not applicable in this case.
The story continually refers to the combination of symptoms as if it is truly "new" information. The truth is, these symptoms have been known for a long time. What is novel is that advocacy groups have formalized recommendations on evaluating women with these symptoms and seemed to have organized a campaign to raise awareness.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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