Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Covering Screening Tests: Do No Harm (As A Reporter)

1,182 views

Published on

One of two talks I gave at Cancer Research in the Media: The NCI’s 2nd Annual Inter-American Workshop for Scientific Journalism

  • Be the first to comment

Covering Screening Tests: Do No Harm (As A Reporter)

  1. 1. Covering Screening Tests: Do No Harm (as a Reporter) Ivan Oransky, MD Executive Editor, Reuters Health Cancer Research in the Media Inter-American Workshop for Scientific Journalism Guadalajara, Mexico November 7, 2011
  2. 2. What’s Not Worth Covering
  3. 3. What’s Worth Covering? <ul><li>Focus on evidence, not opinion, advocacy, or anecdote </li></ul><ul><li>Criteria: Peer-reviewed? </li></ul><ul><li>Most journals are </li></ul><ul><li>Most conferences aren’t </li></ul>
  4. 4. What’s Worth Covering?
  5. 5. What’s Worth Covering? <ul><li>Conferences select presenters based on < 1000 words </li></ul><ul><li>Urologists at U of Florida & Indiana U studied 126 randomized controlled trials presented in 2002-2003 </li></ul>
  6. 6. What’s Worth Covering? <ul><li>RCTs are the “gold standard” of medical evidence </li></ul><ul><li>But the quality of that evidence wasn’t pretty </li></ul><ul><li>No abstract said how trial subjects were randomly assigned to different treatments or placebos </li></ul><ul><li>None told how the study ensured that neither the researchers nor their doctors knew which they got </li></ul><ul><li>Only about a quarter said how long researchers followed the subjects in the trial </li></ul>
  7. 7. What’s Worth Covering? <ul><li>Published? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In what kind of journal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How highly ranked (e.g., what impact factor)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Just because it’s in a journal doesn’t mean it’s the highest-level of evidence </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. From Covering Medical Research , Schwitzer/AHCJ
  9. 9. Journals: What to Keep in Mind <ul><li>Positive publication bias: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publish a trial that will bring US$100,000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by firing an editor. -- Former BMJ editor Richard Smith </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Over-reliance on embargoed studies </li></ul><ul><li>How often it turns out to be wrong </li></ul>
  10. 10. Journals: What to Keep in Mind Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
  11. 11. Journals: What to Keep in Mind
  12. 12. Always Read the Study <ul><li>Writing about a study after reading just a press release or an abstract – without reading the entire paper – is journalistic malpractice </li></ul>
  13. 13. How to Get Studies <ul><li>www.EurekAlert.org for embargoed material </li></ul><ul><li>Join the Association of Health Care Journalists – membership includes access to Cochrane Library, Health Affairs, JAMA, and many other journals www.healthjournalism.org </li></ul><ul><li>ScienceDirect (Elsevier) gives reporters free access to hundreds of journals www.sciencedirect.com </li></ul><ul><li>Open access journals (e.g., Public Library of Science www.plos.org ) </li></ul><ul><li>Ask press officers, or the authors </li></ul>
  14. 14. A Dirty Little Secret <ul><li>Keep a biostatistician in your back pocket </li></ul>Photo by Peyri Herrera, on Flickr
  15. 15. How to Cover Screening <ul><li>Early detection is only worthwhile if two conditions are met: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the disease tends to kill people (not all do) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>there are effective treatments that people are willing to have </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Keep lead time bias in mind </li></ul><ul><li>Be wary of “pre-cancerous” conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Remember: Screening tests have harms </li></ul>
  16. 16. Testing vs Screening <ul><li>If someone is part of a risk group, that’s testing, not screening </li></ul><ul><li>Screening refers to testing large populations without any clear increased risk </li></ul>
  17. 17. Are There Alternatives? <ul><li>Colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy vs. fecal occult blood testing </li></ul><ul><li>Digital mammography vs. film mammography </li></ul>Brownlee S, Lenzer J. The New York Times, 10/5/2011
  18. 18. What If You Test Positive? <ul><li>Is there a good treatment? </li></ul><ul><li>What are side effects and costs of treatment? </li></ul>
  19. 19. What Do Guidelines Say? <ul><li>USPSTF http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org </li></ul>
  20. 20. What Do Guidelines Say? <ul><li>Cochrane Library http://www.cochrane.org/ </li></ul>
  21. 21. What Do Guidelines Say? <ul><li>Cochrane Library http://www.cochrane.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>Scientific and medical societies </li></ul>
  22. 22. Who Gains from Promoting Screening? <ul><li>Doctors, hospitals </li></ul><ul><li>Drug and device manufacturers </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More worry, more funding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are you engaging in disease mongering? </li></ul>
  23. 23. Number Needed to Screen <ul><li>An elegant way to help decide whether something is worthwhile </li></ul><ul><li>Example: </li></ul><ul><li>To find one dangerous breast cancer, you’d need to screen 1,900 women between 40 and 50, compared to 1,300 women over 50. </li></ul><ul><li>So how many false positives, biopsies, overdiagnosed/overtreated women would result? </li></ul>
  24. 24. Number Needed to Screen <ul><li>“ Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed.” </li></ul>
  25. 25. Acknowledgement/Contact <ul><li>Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter: @ivanoransky </li></ul>

×