Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

DNA Blood Test Gives Women A New Option For Prenatal Screening

Rating

4 Star

Categories

DNA Blood Test Gives Women A New Option For Prenatal Screening

Our Review Summary

This story reports on several newer, noninvasive prenatal screening tests called cell-free DNA tests. These tests work by examining pieces of fetal DNA from a blood sample taken from the mother. Although more accurate than traditional screening tests (blood tests plus an ultrasound), the new tests are not accurate enough to provide a definitive diagnosis. This can only be obtained from a more invasive procedure such as amniocentesis. The story did a good job of explaining the confusion surrounding these new tests, which is a result of some doctors and women not understanding the tests’ limitations and accuracy levels compared with other tests. The story could have provided more numbers — including costs and false positive rates — to help readers better understand the tradeoffs involved.

 

Why This Matters

The new prenatal screening tests discussed in this story are not diagnostic tests, and patients may not understand the difference between the certainty of a diagnostic test and the uncertainties of a screening test. Solid health reporting can help women understand these crucial distinctions and make better decisions. The stakes are high when women are making choices about whether to terminate or keep a pregnancy based on these results.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned that insurance coverage of the new tests varies, but no indication of an actual dollar amount was given.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The accuracy level of the new screening tests was described as better than existing screening tests (blood tests plus ultrasound), but this benefit was not quantified (i.e., the screening tests can detect X disease Y% of the time compared with traditional tests, or false alarms occur for X% of new tests vs Y% for traditional screening tests). A linked study abstract provided this detail, but the jargon-filled text would be difficult for most readers to understand. A quick rundown of those numbers would have been easy to provide in the story itself.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story cited several harms associated with the new screening tests, including the risk that some women may terminate a pregnancy based on the screening results alone without follow up diagnostic tests. It also noted that the tests can pick up minor genetic abnormalities that might previously have gone unnoticed.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The study cited in the article (through a hyperlink) reports that the new screening tests did a better job of detecting chromosomal abnormalities. An independent expert quoted in the story agrees that the new tests are more accurate than traditional screening tests. The story’s bottom-line take on the evidence seems appropriate.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story does not commit disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story sought out several expert sources for their opinions about the testing, and it appropriately noted that one of these sources (Dr. Lee Shulman) is a consultant to firms selling the new screening tests. However, it failed to note that another of these expert sources (Dr. Diana Bianchi) was also a paid consultant to a testing company. In addition, it didn’t caution readers that the study the story links to was paid for by a testing company.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story did compare and contrast the new prenatal screening tests to traditional diagnostic tests like amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, which are more invasive.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story mentioned the tests were new to the market (available since 2011), and that many doctors were still not familiar with them. The story made it clear that these tests were not regulated by the FDA.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story discussed how this type of prenatal testing differs from traditional testing and emphasized that the tests were so new that their usefulness and limitations were not clearly understood.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to rely on a news release. The reporter clearly spoke to several expert sources.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory

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.