This story reported on a procedure to freeze recurrent ovarian cancer tumors which showed improvements in survival rates. However, the story doesn’t say what the actual survival rate was. A similar story by Medscape did a much better job of describing cryoablation as a procedure which is currently being used in palliation of symptoms and not meant as a curative treatment of the tumors.
It’s very difficult for any journalist to do a complete job reporting on a complex topic in less than 300 words. The odds were stacked against this one given those limitations.
Recurring ovarian cancer is difficult to treat, but freezing tumors may only provide some benefit and this story didn’t offer appropriate caveats.
There was no discussion of costs in this article.
There was mention of the 5-year survival rate; however, the story did not specify what that survival rate was. This is extremely important since the 5-year survival rate for ovarian cancer differs widely by stage of the cancer. A bigger problem was the lack of a control group and the use of historical controls – never mentioned in the story.
There was no mention of the harms associated with this procedure.
There was no mention of the limitations of the evidence or cautions about the interpretation of the data.
The story did provide correct statistics regarding incidence and mortality rates.
They only included quotes from the medical resident at Wayne State University and actually did not make clear whether that resident was involved in the study. Weak sourcing.
The story did not really mention alternatives except to state surgery and chemotherapy, but from the article it appeared that cryoablation was done after both of these treatment options were used.
There was no mention in the article about availability of the treatment. Are readers expected to know how widespread is its use?
There was insufficient evidence to really understand if this is a novel procedure.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which this story may have been based on a press release. We do know there were no independent perspectives.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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