Global Media Coverage of the Benefits and Harms of Early Detection Tests | Breast Cancer | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Percentage of Stories Reporting Potential Benefits, Harms, and Deemphasizing Harms for 5 Tests, 2016-2019
Percentage of Stories Reporting Potential Benefits, Harms, and Deemphasizing Harms for 5 Tests, 2016-2019

aNo artificial intelligence story mentioned harms only or appeared to deemphasize harms.

Figure 2.  Percentage of Stories With Conflicts of Interest Present and the Media’s Disclosure of Conflicts for 5 Tests, 2016-2019
Percentage of Stories With Conflicts of Interest Present and the Media’s Disclosure of Conflicts for 5 Tests, 2016-2019
1.
Brodersen  J, Kramer  BS, Macdonald  H, Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S.  Focusing on overdiagnosis as a driver of too much medicine.   BMJ. 2018;362:k3494. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Moynihan  R, Bero  L, Ross-Degnan  D,  et al.  Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications.   N Engl J Med. 2000;342(22):1645-1650. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006013422206PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
O’Keeffe  M, Barratt  A, Maher  C,  et al.  Media coverage of the benefits and harms of testing the healthy: a protocol for a descriptive study.   BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029532. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029532PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Moynihan  RN, Clark  J, Albarqouni  L.  Media coverage of the benefits and harms of the 2017 expanded definition of high blood pressure.   JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):272-273. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Walsh-Childers  K, Braddock  J, Rabaza  C, Schwitzer  G.  One step forward, one step back: changes in news coverage of medical interventions.   Health Commun. 2018;33(2):174-187. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1250706PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S.  The media matter: a call for straightforward medical reporting.   Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):226-228. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Overtesting, Overdiagnosis, Ovretreatment
    Eleftherios Diamandis, MD, PhD | Media representation of the benefits and harms of early testing
    O'Keeffe and colleagues  examined the biases associated with reports of health news by scientific journals and public media and concluded that in most cases the authors of such reports stress the possible benefits but ignore the harms. This is especially true for asymptomatic testing (also known as screening). We have also examined the same question and concluded that over-testing can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, which, overall, can harm patients (1).

    More recently, as the authors point out, we saw a strong push by academic investigators and companies of circulating tumor DNA testing for early cancer detection. However our
    calculations have shown that this testing will only be able to detect large, symptomatic tumors (2). We have further stressed the need for journals to provide space for healthy debates of such controversial issues, since; biased reporting favors the good news, not the bad news (3).


    1. Diamandis EP, Li M. The side effects of translational omics: overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016 Mar;54(3):389-96. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0762. PMID: 26444364.

    2. Fiala C, Diamandis EP. Utility of circulating tumor DNA in cancer diagnostics with emphasis on early detection. BMC Med. 2018 Oct 2;16(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1157-9. PMID: 30285732; PMCID: PMC6167864.

    3. Fiala C, Diamandis EP. The Outcomes of Scientific Debates Should Be Published: The Arivale Story. J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Sep 1;5(5):1070-1075. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfaa110. PMID: 32830260.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Research Letter
    April 5, 2021

    Global Media Coverage of the Benefits and Harms of Early Detection Tests

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • 2Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • 3Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • 4Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
    • 5Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):865-867. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0261

    Innovations in technologies for early detection of diseases, such as breast cancer, dementia, and atrial fibrillation, are gaining increasing attention. The media is a key avenue through which tests are promoted to asymptomatic individuals, and it could have an important role in encouraging realistic expectations of the benefits and harms of early detection, including unnecessary diagnoses.1 Evidence suggests that medical media coverage tends to overplay benefits, downplay harms, and ignore conflicts of interest,2 but there are few data on coverage of early detection tests.

    Methods

    We performed a cross-sectional study to examine global media coverage of the benefits and harms of early detection tests for asymptomatic individuals. We also examined conflicts of interest among commentators in stories, as well as media disclosure of conflicts. We studied 5 early detection tests: (1) blood-based liquid biopsy tests for cancer(s), (2) 3-dimensional mammography for breast cancer, (3) Apple Watch Series 4 electrocardiogram for atrial fibrillation, (4) blood biomarker tests for dementia, and (5) artificial intelligence technology for dementia. Our published protocol3 provides detail regarding selection of these tests. The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed the application and stated that it was exempt from review because it was applied to publicly available information in the media.

    We searched for all English-language stories from 2016 to 2019 in LexisNexis, ProQuest, and Google News. We included all nonfictional story types from newspapers, blogs, magazines, broadcast and podcast transcripts, and wire feeds/services if they mentioned or implied a test benefit or harm. Pairs of independent reviewers screened stories for inclusion and coded stories for coverage of health benefits (eg, early treatment, saves lives) and/or harms (eg, false positives, overdiagnosis) and inclusion of commentator views with or without disclosure of conflicts of interest. Analyses were performed using Stata, version 16.0 (StataCorp LLC).

    Results

    We included 1173 stories: liquid biopsy (n = 124), 3-dimensional mammography (n = 579), Apple Watch (n = 273), blood biomarker tests (n = 128), and artificial intelligence (n = 69). Overall, 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%) reported on the benefits, 37% (95% CI, 34%-40%) reported any harms, and only 34% (95% CI, 31%-36%) reported on both benefits and harms; 63% (95% CI, 60%-66%) of stories reported on benefits only, while only 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) reported on harms only (Figure 1). There was variation between tests in the percentage reporting any harms (from 10 of 69 [14%] for artificial intelligence to 157 of 273 [58%] for Apple Watch and 72 of 124 [58%] for liquid biopsy) and both benefit and harm (from 10 of 69 [14%] for artificial intelligence to 67 of 124 [54%] for liquid biopsy). Harms were mentioned but deemphasized in just more than one-quarter (317 of 1173 [27%]) of stories.

    Overdiagnosis was only mentioned in 57 of 432 (13%) of stories that mentioned any harms—5% of stories overall. Overall, 445 of 1173 (38%) of stories quantified a benefit. However, only 62 (14%) of these used absolute numbers. Overall, 127 of 432 (29%) of stories quantified a harm. Almost half (58 of 127 [46%]) of these provided absolute numbers. More than half (55% [95% CI, 52%-57%]) of all stories included the views of commentators with conflicts of interest, but these conflicts were only disclosed in 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%) of these stories (Figure 2).

    Discussion

    In this study, we examined how innovative early detection tests are covered in the media. The findings are important because of the potential of such tests to harm healthy people, in contrast to tests promoted for investigation of symptoms. Yet coverage emphasized benefits far more than harms, and the risk of overdiagnosis received little coverage. Our findings align with other medical media coverage studies.2,4,5 Coding benefits and harms involves subjective judgments, although we piloted an explicit coding scheme and had pairs of independent coders to minimize bias. We did not examine social media coverage. Higher-quality reporting by journalists could encourage more healthy skepticism toward health options6 and curb overdiagnosis.1 Strategies to improve media reporting so that professionals, patients, and the public receive more balanced information about early detection tests are urgently needed.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 2, 2020.

    Published Online: April 5, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0261

    Corresponding Author: Mary O’Keeffe, PhD, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and University of Sydney, Level 10N, King George V Bldg, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (C39), PO Box M179, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia (mary.okeeffe@sydney.edu.au).

    Author Contributions: Dr O’Keeffe had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: O’Keeffe, Barratt, Moynihan.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: O’Keeffe, Barratt.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: O’Keeffe.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: O’Keeffe, Fabbri, Zadro, Ferreira.

    Supervision: O’Keeffe, Barratt, Moynihan.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr O’Keeffe reported receiving grants from the European Commission (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship) outside the submitted work. Dr Barratt reported receiving grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia during the conduct of the study and serving as a scientific steering committee member and receiving travel and accommodation reimbursement from Preventing Overdiagnosis international conferences outside the submitted work. Dr Fabbri was supported as a postdoctoral fellow by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, project grant No. 1122332, during the conduct of the study. Drs Zadro and Moynihan are supported by research fellowships funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr Moynihan reported receiving grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study and serving on the scientific steering committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis conference outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Additional Contributions: We thank Steven Woloshin, MD, MS (Center for Medicine in the Media, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, and the Lisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont), Chris G. Maher, PhD (Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia), and Mark Jones, PhD (Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia), for providing feedback on an earlier draft of the manuscript. They did not receive compensation for these contributions.

    References
    1.
    Brodersen  J, Kramer  BS, Macdonald  H, Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S.  Focusing on overdiagnosis as a driver of too much medicine.   BMJ. 2018;362:k3494. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Moynihan  R, Bero  L, Ross-Degnan  D,  et al.  Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications.   N Engl J Med. 2000;342(22):1645-1650. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006013422206PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    O’Keeffe  M, Barratt  A, Maher  C,  et al.  Media coverage of the benefits and harms of testing the healthy: a protocol for a descriptive study.   BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029532. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029532PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4.
    Moynihan  RN, Clark  J, Albarqouni  L.  Media coverage of the benefits and harms of the 2017 expanded definition of high blood pressure.   JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):272-273. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Walsh-Childers  K, Braddock  J, Rabaza  C, Schwitzer  G.  One step forward, one step back: changes in news coverage of medical interventions.   Health Commun. 2018;33(2):174-187. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1250706PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S.  The media matter: a call for straightforward medical reporting.   Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):226-228. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×