HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Hormone replacement tied to lower colon cancer risk
February 04, 2010
We see so many stories that make unfounded claims about observational studies. It is refreshing to see one that put findings in perspective so well.
Our Review Summary
In only 546 words, this story covered most of the bases - providing absolute data from a big trial, saying that the findings support earlier theories, but warning that this does not change earlier advice about HRT.
Why This Matters:
This story was judicious and cautious - two important characteristics in discussing hormone replacement therapy and colon cancer.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of hormone replacement therapy is not in question.
The cost of hormone replacement therapy is not in question.
Not a problem in this story.
Good job explaining the evidence, explaining that the findings"support the theory that estrogen offers some protection against colon cancer" but then stating clearly, "However, no one is recommending that women take HRT to ward off colon cancer." The story also discussed one physiological theory that has been forwarded to explain what COULD be happening to lower colon cancer risk. But no sensational claims or projections were made.
The story did state, "a large U.S. government study in 2002 found that postmenopausal women given HRT had higher risks of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer and blood clots than women given an inactive placebo." And we think that's sufficient in this case.
The story did a decent job putting the new study in context, explaining, "Some past studies have linked not only HRT, but also use of birth control pills, to a lower colon cancer risk"
Of the 34,433 HRT users, 193 were diagnosed with colon cancer during the study period; that compared with 151 cases among the 13,778 women who had never used hormone replacement.
HRT -- with either estrogen alone or a combination of estrogen and progestin -- was linked to a lower colon cancer risk even when the researchers accounted for the women's age, weight, exercise levels and race.
There's no evidence that this story relied on a news release.
The only source cited was the lead author/researcher. We always wish stories would include an independent expert voice for additional perspective.
The story at least discussed other colon cancer risk factors:
Older age and African-American race are risk factors for colon cancer, and there is evidence linking obesity and a sedentary lifestyle to the disease as well.
Total Score: 7 of 8 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.