This story adequately addressed most of our criteria; exceptions were actual costs and better discussion of potential harms.
Circumcision has been on the decline in the country although the American Academy of Pediatrics’ examination of the evidence suggests that long-term health benefits from this procedure may outweigh risks associated with circumcision, a stance they have not taken in the past.
Cost was mentioned as a barrier for some people but no actual cost estimates were given in the story. AP’s story gave a CDC estimate of nationwide costs ranging from $200-600.
Only relative risk reduction figures were given for UTI and HIV risk reduction.
The AAP website notes: “A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.” This would have given readers a bit more of an idea of what the numbers are.
Nonetheless, the NPR story did a better job on this by giving some numbers than did the competing AP story, so we’ll give it a pass.
The only specific harm mentioned in the story was critics’ comparison to genital mutilation.
But the story didn’t cite what the AAP wrote in its statement:
“Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare.”
Or what appears on the AAP website:
Problems after a circumcision are very rare. However, call your pediatrician right away if
- Your baby does not urinate normally within 6 to 8 hours after the circumcision.
- Bleeding doesn’t stop.
- The redness around the tip of the penis gets worse after 3 to 5 days.
- Yellow discharge lasts longer than a week. It is normal to have a little yellow discharge or coating around the head of the penis in the first week.
The story attempted to discuss some of the limitations of the evidence by citing the HIV health benefit was mainly based on evidence from Africa. But the story was short on the specifics of the research methods other than noting, the task force, “….analyzed more than a thousand studies.” Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Both advocates for circumcision and opponents were quoted within the story.
The alternative is no circumcision and was presented in the article.
The availability is clear in the story, as is the decline in use…and the fact that many state Medicaid programs have stopped covering it.
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.
The article does not rely solely on a press release and attempted to obtain quotes from individuals not involved in the policy recommendations.
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 (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ron Low
September 2, 2012 at 4:25 pmThe story did not mention that in their report the AAP admits they excluded deaths, amputations, and botched jobs so severe they required surgical revision. Hundreds of US doctors specialize on doing such revisions.
Ash Paul
September 4, 2012 at 9:33 amYou might be interested to read this posting from Brian Earp, from the University of Oxford, writing in the Practical Ethics Blog:
The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine
Web-link:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
Judith Lienhard
September 5, 2012 at 11:56 pmno mention is made of how circumcision impacts breastfeeding. circumcision is an elective, cosmetic procedure done to a patient who cannot consent!
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