November 3rd, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Continuing this week’s spontaneous theme (we didn’t make the claims and write the stories) of runaway enthusiasm for various screening tests by some researchers and journalists, HealthDay news service has reported on a study published in the Oct. 28 issue of the journal Nature that they say “provides new insight into the genetics of pancreatic cancer.” In the story, they let one of the researchers get away with saying, almost unchallenged:
“What’s important about this study is that it’s objective data in support of why everyone should be screened for pancreatic cancer.”
Mind you, this was a study that looked at tissue from just seven patients. The story continued with its breathless enthusiasm for the pancreatic cancer screening idea:
“In the future, new imaging techniques and blood tests will offer hope for early detection, the study noted. And just as people have a colonoscopy when they turn 50, “perhaps they should have an endoscopy of their upper gastrointestinal organs that includes an ultrasound of the pancreas,” said (the researcher).”
The very end of the story included some skepticism from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
October 5th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Health Tips, News, Opinion, Research, Video
No Comments »
We reviewed four stories on the Swedish mammography study that appeared in the journal Cancer last week. Three of the four stories gave a pretty clear indication that there were methodological concerns about the Swedish research (of the four reviewed, only HealthDay offered no such hint):
• 4th paragraph of AP story: “The new study has major limitations and cannot account for possibly big differences in the groups of women it compares.”
• 1st paragraph of LA Times blog story: “Critics charged that the study was poorly designed and potentially vastly misleading.”
• 2nd sentence of NY Times story: “Results were greeted with skepticism by some experts who say they may have overestimated the benefit.”
But none of the stories did a very complete job of explaining those potential limitations. Because of the confusion that must be occurring in the minds of women — especially those in their 40s — this is a time in which journalism must rise to the need and do a better job of evaluating evidence and helping readers make sense of what appear to be conflicting findings.
I was in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, when the study was published and had the chance to talk about it with former U.S. Preventive Services Task Force member, and a recognized thought leader on issues of prevention and especially of screening tests, Dr. Russell Harris, Professor and Director of the Health Care and Prevention Concentration of the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Public Health. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
June 8th, 2010 by StaceyButterfield in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
We’ve been slacking in the “Medical news of the obvious” department lately. Seems like research has been either actually newsworthy or so obvious that you could spot it yourselves (for example, the continuing investigations of whether smoking and being lazy are bad for you).
But we couldn’t let this one slide by: “A new study that analyzes what would happen if a person were to eat 2,000 calories of foods that are advertised on the tube,” as HealthDay describes. As even the average Saturday morning cartoon viewer could have predicted, the food in commercials turns out to be bad for you. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Hospitalist*
