Beyond October being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it’s not clear why this story–which is a rehash of a news release–was published. It won’t serve readers well: The story contains no new information; it oversimplifies the ongoing complexities of the debate about appropriate levels of breast cancer screening and their consequences; and overall is unlikely to help women make an informed decision about their medical care.
Why This Matters
Breast cancer remains a persistent killer of women in the developed world, and while treatments have improved quality of life and some overall survival rates in some groups, uncertainty persists with respect to clinical screening and risk assessment guidelines. An individual woman’s risk of dying of breast cancer is highly variable, based on genetics, environmental, and psychological factors. Thus, articles designed to raise awareness about the need for careful risk assessment and purposeful preventive and interventional care need to put information in careful context because women already at risk, or the worried well, may pay too little or too much attention to the wrong advice.
The article lacked information on costs. Insurance does not always cover screening.
Beyond vague generalizations of benefits, this article is essentially data free. Based on research, to what degree do these various screening methods save lives? The story doesn’t say.
There are potential and actual harms to screenings, including unnecessary biopsies and other tests, anxiety and false negatives. Again, while new technologies have reduced some of these harms, they are not zero. The story doesn’t mention any.
No quantifiable or measurable evidence for the value of “just say yes to screening” is offered. What is the evidence behind these methods? We’re not told.
This article, while absent inflammatory language, mongers. It indicates women should pursue screening without exploring more carefully at least some of the nuances involved in such a decision beyond “speak with your physician.”
No independent sources were cited. The article is based almost entirely on a single source in a news release issued by Fox Chase cancer center by a mammographer.
We’ll will give credit for noting that there are many alternative screening methods and for pointing out that not all women who have symptoms get breast cancer.
It’s clear that all of these screening instruments are available.
It’s not clear what’s “novel” or new about this information. If this piece ran because of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, that should have been more clear.
This story appears to rely entirely on the news release.
Beyond October being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it’s not clear why this story–which is a rehash of a news release–was published. It won’t serve readers well: The story contains no new information; it oversimplifies the ongoing complexities of the debate about appropriate levels of breast cancer screening and their consequences; and overall is unlikely to help women make an informed decision about their medical care.
Breast cancer remains a persistent killer of women in the developed world, and while treatments have improved quality of life and some overall survival rates in some groups, uncertainty persists with respect to clinical screening and risk assessment guidelines. An individual woman’s risk of dying of breast cancer is highly variable, based on genetics, environmental, and psychological factors. Thus, articles designed to raise awareness about the need for careful risk assessment and purposeful preventive and interventional care need to put information in careful context because women already at risk, or the worried well, may pay too little or too much attention to the wrong advice.
The article lacked information on costs. Insurance does not always cover screening.
Beyond vague generalizations of benefits, this article is essentially data free. Based on research, to what degree do these various screening methods save lives? The story doesn’t say.
There are potential and actual harms to screenings, including unnecessary biopsies and other tests, anxiety and false negatives. Again, while new technologies have reduced some of these harms, they are not zero. The story doesn’t mention any.
No quantifiable or measurable evidence for the value of “just say yes to screening” is offered. What is the evidence behind these methods? We’re not told.
No independent sources were cited. The article is based almost entirely on a single source in a news release issued by Fox Chase cancer center by a mammographer.
We’ll will give the story credit for noting that there are several screening methods, and for pointing out that not all women who have symptoms get breast cancer.
It’s clear that all of these screening methods are available.
It’s not clear what’s “novel” or new about this information. If this piece ran because of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, that should have been more clear.
This story appears to rely entirely on the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Sitting & cancer...alcohol & improved cognition. Waking up to a double whammy of miscommunicated observational studies.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/
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.
Colleen Sullivan, PhD
October 16, 2017 at 8:01 pmThe review of the Health Day article on breast cancer screening was detailed and very important. Patients need to learn that all diagnostic tests have more consequences than the immediate results. Young people need to be taught the tool of critical thinking in all they read. The majority of my non medical friends still believe a yearly mammogram is essential. Very few have been educated by their Mds as there is not enough time to be teachers.
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