ABC News pursues a story idea they heard about in a special issue of National Geographic magazine and calls it a “breakthrough fertility test.” But what ABC delivers is one satisfied success story. We’re given no broader context other than the vague reference to the fact that it hasn’t been tried “on many” women. How many? And with what results? How can the audience judge whether the breakthrough label fits in this case? They can’t.
Yes, couples with infertility problems are desperate for answers. But that is why context and evidence is so important – not merely single anecdote success stories that may not be representative of the experiences of other women who have been similarly treated.
There are many causes of infertility, of which recurrent pregnancy loss (repeated miscarriage) is only one. Roughly 70% of women who have 2 or more miscarriages eventually have a successful pregnancy, but for the rest, the inability to carry a pregnancy to term can be devastating. Couples faced with recurrent pregnancy loss deserve to have accurate information on what is known, and not known, about new treatments, so that their distress is not further amplified by unrealistic expectations.
This is a tossup. In the online text piece there was no discussion of costs, nor of whether insurers were likely to reimburse for the procedure.
If online readers clicked on the video at the top of the piece – and sat through a Ford commercial or some other ad – they would hear that the testing can cost from $800 to $1,000 and is not covered by insurance.
But we still have questions. There is no discussion online or on-the-air about what the total package of treatment – including the implantation and followup – costs.
So in the end, we rate this confusion as unsatisfactory.
No information is provided about how many women have been treated with this approach – only that it is “not many.” So there is no context for readers (or ABC’s viewers) to be able to judge what the likelihood of benefit is. They hear only one satisfied success story.
Biomarkers for endometrial receptivity have been under study for over a decade, but there have been few studies to validate specific biomarkers such as DNA testing.
The way ABC addressed potential harms is peculiar.
The online story concludes:
One risk of the procedure many women may not take into account is the emotional effects of it not working and you still miscarrying, Shepherd said. It is a new process and important to go over the risks of the procedure — which can vary per person — with your health care provider.
OK, that’s one risk. Are there others? This excerpt states that it’s “important to go over the risks” – plural. If they are so important, why wouldn’t they be mentioned – along with some estimate of how often they are likely to occur – in a nationally broadcast and online news story?
The plural of anecdote is not data. And we learn of only one anecdote. No context is provided about how many times this approach has been tried and by how many physicians in how many settings.
The on-air demonstration of how the soil jars and the flower are exactly like the uterus seemed like something out of a fifth grade science class.
The story did explain that “the ideal candidates are women who have had three or more miscarriages or women over 40, but emphasized that the test is not for everyone and infertility is a spectrum.” And it offered an estimated of 12% of couples with infertility problems.
We’ll award a hesitant satisfactory score for this criterion.
The fertility specialist who treated the woman profiled in the story was interviewed. And so was another OB-Gyn, but no explanation was given of where she works or why she was chosen to be interviewed.
So we don’t know if she’s connected in some way with the fertility center in question.
The fertility test in question was called a breakthrough. But readers and viewers are given no evidence-based comparison between it and the countless other methods to try to help infertile couples.
The online text piece doesn’t offer any information about how often this approach has been tried – or in how many settings. Only that it hasn’t been done “on many” women.
Does that mean five times, 50? In one setting, in 10?
Neither readers nor viewers are given appropriate context.
There is little published information on DNA testing for endometrial receptivity and there is no test available for clinical use to my knowledge.
Basic questions that were never addressed:
Again, we’ll award a generous grade of Satisfactory here.
ABC acknowledges that it based its story on a National Geographic special.
But there is no evidence that it copied from 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