This is a story reporting results of a systematic review of studies about the relationship of IUDs to cervical cancer. After combing through multiple studies, the researchers identified 16 high-quality studies. Evidence in those studies indicated women with IUDs are 30% less likely to get cervical cancer, the story said.
But we wanted to know: 30% less than what? What is the incident rate in women with IUDs — and women without them? To its credit, the story points out that these were observational studies, meaning they weren’t actual clinical trials, and more evidence is needed before women should make the decision to get an IUD just as a way of preventing cervical cancer.
The results of this research reaffirm earlier studies suggesting that there is a reduced risk of cervical cancer associated with the use of IUD’s. However, until an experimental trial is conducted, readers should take the findings with a grain of salt.
The exact cost of an IUD wasn’t mentioned in the story, but it did allude to the low cost of the product. The story also missed an opportunity to articulate the economic issues associated with HPV vaccine availability, namely the manufacturing cost of the vaccines and the profitability focus of the pharmaceutical industry.
The story explained that women who used an IUD were 30% less likely to develop cervical cancer but did not provide any quantification of that number. Readers need to know: 30% less than what? The incidence of the disease would have improved the story and placed the 30% reduction into perspective. There are approximately 400-500,000 case of cervical cancer diagnosed annually with a 50% death rate overall worldwide. The incidence of the disease varies widely with an incidence of approximately 16/100,000 in developing countries compared to approximately 10/100,000 in the developed world.
Although this story did a great job on most counts, it didn’t mention potential harms of IUDs. Cramping, spotting between periods, and heavier periods are all possible side effects. The bigger issue that the story could have mentioned, though, is that IUDs don’t protect against other STIs.
The writer was careful to quote the authors of the study about the limitations of the quality of evidence. This was a synthesis of previously existing evidence, all of which were observational studies. Observational studies can demonstrate that two things are associated, but they don’t prove that one causes another. That is, they can suggest correlation, but not causality. That came across clearly.
No disease mongering here. Cervical cancer kills hundreds of thousands of women across the world every year.
Unfortunately, the story depended on quotes only from the lead author of the study. Verification of the significance of study findings by an independent expert would have strengthened credibility of the story.
The story did a good job of comparing IUDs to vaccines and regular screening, even going into the details of when and how often each of those should occur, and making it clear that IUDs are not yet a proven option for cervical cancer prevention.
IUDs have been available to women for decades. The only issue the story might have considered further is how available they are in low-income nations where vaccines and regular screening are not accessible to many women.
This story reported the findings of a systematic review. That means it’s not going to be breaking news. What it does, though, is to synthesize existing research and make clear exactly what the state of current knowledge about the topic is.
The author appears to have interviewed the lead author of the study in addition to reading the news release. The story also quotes statistics from the World Health Organization.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
@HealthNewsRevu "There’s no harm in trying to make a buck, per se. But there is harm in promoting things that are not backed up by evidence, and in converting normal states of health into sickness" https://t.co/aeUTK4CVAs
Men’s Health Month: "Some of it was thinly-veiled, profit-driven fear-mongering," says @garyschwitzer: https://t.co/MOWdxlenvz
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