This story describes how some doctors are helping women “beat their biological clock” by taking a test that roughly predicts the number of eggs left in the ovaries. Dubbed the “baby deadline test,” the test measures a hormone–known as Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)–circulating in a woman’s blood.
This piece was rife with problems–from disease-mongering to skipping any discussion of data–which we’ll detail below. We also want to note the headline that ran across the televised version of the story–“BLOOD TEST PREDICTS FERTILITY”–was misleading and inaccurate.
Infertility is an issue that affects millions of American men and women, the CDC reports, and can require extensive medical help. This is a problem that also increases with age. Therefore, any major advances in predicting a woman’s long-term ability to get pregnant would garner major interest.
We’re giving this a Satisfactory rating since the story did mention that the test “usually costs less than $100.”
The story would have been stronger if it had explained if insurance companies typically cover the test–especially if it’s being given to women without any history of infertility. There also may be associated costs with follow-up testing.
The story didn’t provide any quantified information, such as research outcomes involving this test, and instead relied heavily on patient and physician anecdotes. If research is lacking, that should be noted. Presumably this test has been studied among women actively struggling to get pregnant, but the quantified benefits of this test for that patient group aren’t discussed, either.
Harms were not discussed, though they exist. To name a few, women may act upon the test results–for example, undergoing invasive and expensive treatments like egg retrieval and freezing–when those actions may have not been necessary. Or they may experience anxiety over test results that show low levels of the hormone, and consider themselves “infertile” when that is not at all certain.
The story stated that the AMH test “….doesn’t measure the quality of the eggs and it’s not a guarantee of fertility.” That is not enough information, especially weighed against the detailed patient anecdote.
What are the limitations of a test that can (roughly) measure egg count, but not egg quality? What scientific research supports it use? And for whom? And how trustworthy is that research? Is that research applicable to women who aren’t trying nor struggling to get pregnant?
The story referred to the AMH test as the “baby deadline test,” implying a woman’s fertility span is a disease that must be detected and dealt with early, years before she might want to get pregnant. And that the solution is this blood test–which is actually only one indicator of many to assess a woman’s fertility. This is an example of disease mongering.
The doctor interviewed in this story stands to gain from positive news coverage of this blood test, especially considering the clinic he works for is actively trying to get women to take the test, which will result in an increase in patient referrals. We think that’s suspect enough that the journalists reporting the story should have sought out additional, independent opinions.
There were no alternatives–or the lack thereof–mentioned in the story. Readers should be informed: How do other long-term fertility-detection methods compare to this one?
The story mentioned the blood test is pretty common in fertility clinics, and we’re informed that the patient in the story took the test at her regular ob/gyn’s office. That’s enough information to give readers a general sense of the test’s availability.
The story did mention that the AMH test is not a new test, calling it a “staple” at fertility clinics. That just passes as Satisfactory.
However, the specific use of the test discussed in the story–as a long-term fertility detection method among women who have no known fertility problems–is a relatively new idea, and that could have been made clearer.
The story appears to be original work and not from a news release from any particular institution.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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