There is no mention of costs or insurance coverage for mammograms and if or how this recommendation might affect insurance coverage. The story does not adequately quantify the benefits or harms of mammography. The representative of the American Cancer Society provides the number needed to screen, which is very helpful, but this should have come from a source that is more objective. A reader might also want to know the false-positive rate for mammography. The story adequately describes the harms of mammograms, such as needless procedures and stress and anxiety from false positive results. The story does not discuss the evidence for the new recommendations. Readers would want to know if this is based on new results or just a new look at the same studies. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of breast cancer. The story quotes multiple experts who provide contrasting view points and much needed perspective. It should be noted though, that, in terms of pure quote count, those who oppose the new recommendations outnumber those voices who support them. The story mentions breast self-exams, breast exams by a clinician and no screening as alternatives to regular mammography screening. Clearly mammograms are widely available. Clearly mammograms are not a new idea, but delaying starting screening until age 50 is a relatively new concept in the US. The story could have explained, though, that this idea is not at all novel in other Western countries. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Now what do I do? Suddenly women in their 40s must ponder whose mammography advice to follow