At some point, costs must enter into this discussion. But this story never got there. The story states: “The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age,” (the USPSTF chair) said. “There are whole lots of assumptions that are not supported by the data they presented.” We wouid have like to have seen more discussion of the potential harms in 85% of biopsies being non-cancerous. But since the story did actually quantify the number of false positives, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. Better than the competing Denver Post story if only because CNN allows the US Preventive Services Task Force chair to explain their recommendations – something the Denver story didn’t do. But there could have been more scrutiny of the studies reported on. There was not much focus on whether we can really learn much from the single site retrospective study of their biopsies (did they compare to biopsies from patients who did not have screening mammograms? on what basis were they claiming that they were more treatable? and that being more treatable leads to longer life?). No overt disease-mongering. Good sourcing, including – unlike the competing Denver Post story – input from the chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force. There was a far more balanced discussion of harms and benefits in this story, although the use of personal opinion and recommendations, and the ending resulted in an imbalance in the piece. Excerpts that demonstrate this imbalance: Wouldn’t a more balanced way to end the piece – focusing on the shared decision-making element so important in this issue – have been to end with this: Nonethless, all of this was in the piece, so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. Not applicable. The availability of mammograms is not in question. Adequate job putting the new studies in context of past research and recommendations. It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
Fewer mammograms being done, studies show