[ad_1]
Our Review Summary
The release focuses on a "proof-in-principle" study that is feasible to use at home testing kits to screen low income women with access to medical care for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, which can lead to cervical Cancer. The release could be more precise, but it could not be used before, but it could be used on a broad scale.
Why This Matters
As the National Cancer Institute notes, virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV – with most of them being caused by certain strains of HPV. HPV infection can help prevent cancer, or allow cancer patients to prevent cancer. That makes screening for HPV important, and especially so for patients with limited resources. And those at-risk communities are exactly who this study was trying to address. It 's important to make clear – it' s still a challenge, and that regulatory barriers remain. Most importantly, the release stresses that it is necessary to proceed with this approach.
Criteria
Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?
Satisfactory
The release does not place a pricetag on HPV screening – which would include the test kit, clinical analysis and follow-up clinical visit. However, it is more likely that this statement is more effective and cost-effective. "That acknowledgment is enough to earn it a satisfactory rating here.
Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of treatment / test / product / procedure?
Satisfactory
This is a tricky question, as it is not clear how to define the relevant benefit. The paper itself defines the goal of the study as evaluating the validity and acceptability of HPV screening. If part of assessment "acceptability" was yes, yes, yes? If so, the release failed, since it does not even tell us how to be tested (284 women, according to the paper). However, validity is easier to address. How well did the at-home, self-collected samples compare to other screening tests? The release does address this head on. It states that the at-home, self-collected test indicated 12.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections. In-clinic, self-collected tests indicated 15.5% had high-risk HPV infections. And clinician-collected tests indicated 11.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections. Those are hard numbers, and we will give the release of the benefit of the doubt on this one. However, those three different numbers raise some questions, which the release does not do a good job of addressing. More on that below.
Does the news release adequately explain / quantify the harms of the intervention?
Not Satisfactory
HPV, HPV, HPV, HPV, and the "false positive" misdiagnosis of people who did not have high-risk HPV. This is the difference between "sensitivity" and "specificity." It is particularly important in this instance because HPV screening has a track record of having high sensitivity and high sensitivity. in some of the screenings, but not others. Missing someone who is at high risk is clearly problematic. One of the following is one of the most important aspects of a child's health, with consequences both physical and financial.
Another potential harm could be having a certain rate of patients leaving the test, leaving clinicians with positive tests and patients who would be skewed by the impact of the screening effort.
Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?
Not Satisfactory
This boils down to a very simple problem. This concern is in relation to the lack of comparison in screening of three types of tests: at-home, self-collected tests indicated 12.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections; in-clinic, self-collected tests indicated 15.5% had high-risk HPV infections; and clinician-collected tests indicated 11.4% of women had high-risk HPV infection.
To most readers, the difference between 11.4% and 15.5% seems like a lot – more than 4%. If they were to do the math at home, they'd see that eight people (out of 193) were diagnosed as being at high risk in one scenario, but not in another. What gives? But it's not helpful. "We found it easy to detect between self-collection and physician-collection." That's not helpful. In addition, the evidence points to the fact that "all women found to have high-grade cervical lesions … were positive for high-risk HPV in their home self-collected sample." this group of people less than 10 people, which can be extrapolated to a larger population. In short, it's important to address the sensitivity and specificity when writing about a diagnostic tool.
Does the news release commit disease-mongering?
Satisfactory
HPV – particularly certain strains of HPV – can significantly increase risk for cervical cancer. There's no doubt about that. However, not all women who contract HPV will get cervical cancer. There's no doubt about that. In fact, the CDC notes that 80 percent of women have contracted HPV by the time they are 50, yet the National Cancer Institute estimates that they will contract cervical cancer in their lifetime. It can be difficult to highlight the importance of HPV screening without edging into "disease mongering" territory. This release walks up the line, but does not cross it.
Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory
[ad_2]
Source link
