LA Times portrays PSA screening analysis as far more clear-cut and definite than even the authors claim

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not address the cost of the PSA test itself or of follow-up testing or treatment.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story reports only the study’s estimate of a relative risk reduction of 25 to 32 percent. This figure is meaningless without reporting the underlying absolute risk of dying from prostate cancer. The American Cancer Society states that “About 1 man in 39 will die of prostate cancer.” To put it another way, of every 100 men in the US, fewer than 3 will die of prostate cancer and more than 97 will die of something else. The study’s estimate of relative risk reduction might translate into fewer than 2 men dying of prostate cancer and more than 98 dying of something else. However, since many men are already screened with PSA tests, the actual reduction in deaths is likely to be smaller than that. For a more accurate way to capture the measured benefits, see STAT’s story.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story does report at the top that this study is “a new analysis of existing clinical trial evidence.” It cites two big studies, PLCO and ERSPC, and recommendations based on them that were issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

However, readers are not told specifically that this new analysis is based on data from those two specific studies, nor does it explain that the authors used a variety of methods to estimate the differences in death rates from prostate cancer based on screening practices used in these underlying studies, which involved a number of assumptions and simplifications. The story portrays the results of the analysis as far more clear-cut and definite than even the authors claim. See our STAT review for an example of a story that more accurately discussed the evidence.

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

Not Satisfactory

As with the STAT News story, this one didn’t note the financial disclosures of the study authors, including the senior author, Ruth Etzioni, who disclosed she owns equity in a company developing medical imaging technology that it says could be applied in prostate cancer patients. Dr. Etzioni stated that she does not consider the equity ownership to be a conflict of interest, but considering that an increase in PSA screening would boost demand for more precise and less invasive follow-up testing, it appears that her company would benefit.

While the story does quote an independent source, it would have been helpful to note that he consults for the medical industry.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. While that source does not raise any red flags, and the study stated that the funder had no role in the study, news stories are more informative when they note study funding.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not explain how or why this analysis of two trials is potentially more informative than the original separate studies themselves.