This Today.com story addresses an issue of desperate concern to parents of autistic children: the possibility of spotting signs of autism earlier than age two or three, which is the development stage at which autism is typically identified.
The story did a good job explaining the study’s design and how the benefits were measured. Using a number of sources to provide perspective, it also discussed the need for more research to better refine the test.
That said, the story would have been stronger if it had discussed the “big picture” of early markers for autism, and where this latest research fits in with that. It also needed more on the harms of a screening test like this.
Parents of children with autism may find hope in the possibility that progress is being made toward identifying early markers of autism. This makes it important that stories about this issue don’t over promise, and this one doesn’t. The story is careful to qualify the implications of the research results, and clearly delineates what they do and don’t mean at this stage of knowledge.
Although this article made it clear that parents of children with autism should not rush out and get MRIs of infant siblings, it did not mention the costs of MRIs, which may be prohibitive for parents without good insurance coverage.
Benefits in terms of detection are described, including limitations of the current state of knowledge. The article is careful to draw parameters around the immediate significance of the findings and to express the need for further research. Numbers are even provided for how accurate researchers would like the MRI to be in predicting autism in infants before the procedure could be recommended for siblings of autistic children.
No mention is made of the harms inherent in MRIs for infants. Some of the harms of MRIs have to do with the sedation that is required, which, ironically, may harm the developing brain.
Also, as with any screening test, there are the harms of “false-positive” and “false-negative” results. In this case, a false-positive finding would result in a healthy baby being diagnosed with autism. And for a false-negative result, a baby with autism wouldn’t be diagnosed.
The story describes the size of the sample, and the proportion of infants within the sample who had siblings with autism. The sample is fairly large and was followed over two years. All of this is explained in reader friendly language. The story also told readers not to rush out and request an MRI for autism screening, as it’s not ready for clinical use yet.
The story would have been stronger if it also had mentioned that there is not clear evidence that such early detection of autism will improve outcomes.
There is no disease mongering in this article, and it does a good job of establishing how prevalent autism is in the general population, and the rate of diagnosis between siblings.
The story includes quotes from independent researchers, and we did not detect any potential conflicts of interest.
One other study is mentioned having to do with changes in surface area of infant brains. No other information is provided about other advances that have been made regarding early markers for autism. This means readers do not have a context within which to judge how important this advance is compared to others.
No explicit discussion is provided about the availability of MRIs for this sort of detection procedure (and if any special, different tools or procedures are needed), but the story does make it clear that this idea is still under research, so it’s experimental for now.
The story doesn’t establish novelty. According to the study itself, this study “confirms and extends” previous findings, so it is not a new idea.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
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
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