This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.
We have only minor quibbles with the story–overall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it’s important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn’t go there.
Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public’s health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the “gold standard” and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news story does a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.
We’ll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one.
This story focuses on the available methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests — the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test — when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other.
The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there’s “a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation” from the screening test.
But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors.
The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available.
Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger.
The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest.
Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating.
Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient’s doctor’s office. These details establish the methods’ availability. It also quotes one source as recommending against the use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease.
The story notes that what’s novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening.
There is no indication that this story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
With the discontinuation of @HealthNewsRevu, there's a genuine concern that well-written and researched "reality checks" in healthcare are not economically interesting. This should be disconcerting to anyone, and yet I'm only seeing more and more piling into "promising findings"
Thanks for ALL you do and have done, Gary. https://t.co/93K4hzQXZj
Thanks for sharing this with all of us today, @garyschwitzer @HealthNewsRevu
A nice gift.
#healthcare #healthcarenews #journalism #reporting #factsmatter #truthmatters https://t.co/hNHdZDl2rc
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Marie Koch
January 15, 2017 at 2:43 pmAfter being disabled by a colonoscopy [see gutsense.org] I feel that the adverse effects of this procedure is grossly underreported. [I’ve been homebound for eight years, no one knows why]…Maybe the anesthesia [likely], or an infection (you know the scope is reused, right?) or damage by the junk you drink to clean you out that’s synthetic and similar to antifreeze or maybe the adverse effects of washing out a lifetime of probiotics/flora that took a lifetime to balance. I seriously recommend running from this test. This test is not like opening up your mouth and saying, “ah”. It’s dangerous…
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