The story is a brief overview of preimplantation genetic screening, in which couples who are using in vitro fertilization (IVF) to become pregnant have embryos tested for genetic disorders before proceeding with implantation.
The story does not address cost or risks in any way. But what is most puzzling is why this story was written now. There does not appear to be a news hook, and preimplantation genetic screening has been around for decades. It’s also not made clear enough that this information applies to couples undergoing IVF only.
Having a child is a personal decision, and couples who have trouble conceiving have to deal with emotional challenges as well as medical ones. For families who are worried about the risk of genetic disorders, things can be even more complex. Add to this the significant financial burden involved with addressing fertility problems, and it is often an incredibly stressful and difficult ordeal. Couples grappling with these issues may look for materials online to help them understand their options. Stories that explain the costs and risks of medical techniques and procedures related to fertility and diagnosing genetic disorders can be incredibly valuable resources.
The story doesn’t address cost at all, which is a huge oversight in a story about preimplantation genetic screening. First of all, preimplantation genetic screening is only an option for people who are using IVF — which is expensive and often not covered by insurance. Second, the screenings themselves often cost thousands of dollars.
The story doesn’t quantify benefits. The story tells readers 1 out of 33 births has a genetic disorder. We want to know: Does the screening identify all of them? How accurate are the tests? How much do they “limit the chances of an embryo carrying a chromosomal disorder from being implanted?” Readers deserve to see numbers around these limits. It’s also far from clear this applies only to IVF. The story makes it sound like this applies to any pregnancy.
The story doesn’t address potential harms. A 2011 article in the journal Nursing for Women’s Health addresses the issue nicely: “The limitations of [preliminary genetic diagnosis] should be discussed with the couple, too. These include informing the couple about the possibility of misdiagnosis and also the possibility that genetic mutation-free embryos may not be identified.” Those are risks that can’t be overlooked.
There is no discussion of evidence. This is a technique that has been around for more than 20 years, and has been the subject of myriad journal articles. There is no shortage of information out there. But this story offers readers very little information about how the technique works, how accurate it is, or what research supports its use.
There are two sources cited here, both of whom appear to offer these fertility services in clinics where they work. The story is upfront about that. And while this type of screening is fairly controversial, that is largely due to debates over the morality of terminating an embryo. And that debate is not the focus of the story, at least not directly.
The alternative to screening before implantation is not screening before implantation. That’s sufficiently clear that we’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story makes clear that preimplantation genetic screening is available, but it doesn’t make clear that it is available only for pregnancies resulting from IVF.
Based on this story, readers could be forgiven for assuming that preimplantation genetic screening is a relatively recent development. But that’s not the case.
As noted in the paper in Nursing for Women’s Health: “Two decades have passed since preimplantation genetic diagnosis was successfully used to benefit high-genetic-risk couples with a known genetic disorder” (emphasis added). And that paper came out five years ago.
With comments from interviews with two sources, the story does appear to go beyond any news release. But the lack of any apparent news hook, and the fact that both quoted sources offer the services discussed in the story at their clinic, make us suspicious that impetus for this story is promotional rather than informational.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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