Still, this was a reasonable report on the AAP policy statement, emphasizing the role of parents’ shared decision-making on this issue up high in the second sentence.
Parents still have to make decisions and news stories could help them by providing the best evidence on how large is the scope of potential benefit and how large is the scope of potential harm – actual numbers.
Cost estimates from CDC are given.
Benefits were not quantified but listed within the article. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) didn’t quantify the benefits in its policy statement either. But consumers need to understand how “significant” are the reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection or the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and transmission of other STDs. Even a simple infographic would have helped.
The story included the concerns of some that circumcision “amounts to genital mutilation” or “causes loss of sexual satisfaction.”
But it didn’t include the AAP’s policy statement excerpt that:
“Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare.”
The story didn’t really describe the process by which the recommendation was developed.
The story included an almost throwaway quote from the author of another recent study on states eliminating Medicaid coverage for circumcision. And a quote from a psychologist heading an anti-circumcision group. It also briefly touched on AMA and American Academy of Family Physicians’ policies.
The alternative is no circumcision, which is clear from the story.
The story stated that roughly a million procedures are doneeach year in the US but it also described recent declines in US circumcision rates.
The story was very specific in stating that most circumcisions are performed in hospitals by obstetricians or pediatricians.
The story makes it clear that the AAP has previously issued recommendations on the topic of circumcision and points out that this latest recommendation is a bit contrary to that previously issued.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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