The release focuses on a recent "demonstration in principle" study that found it possible to use test kits at home to show women with low incomes with limited access to healthcare for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, which can lead to cervical cancer. The release could do more to clarify the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools, but it's a good job to clearly say that it is necessary to work before this approach can be spread on a wide scale.
Why is it important
As the National Cancer Institute states, virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV – most of them are caused by certain types of HPV. Even early diagnosis of HPV infection can help prevent cancer or allow patients and health care providers the warning they need to monitor cervical cancer. This is important for HPV screening, especially for patients with limited resources who may not have regular access to health care providers for review or regular screening. And those risk groups are just who this study was trying to deal with. It's important to make it clear – how this edition does – this cost remains a challenge and the regulatory barriers remain. Most importantly, the announcement emphasizes that it is necessary to work even before such an approach is screened from the theoretical to the practical.
Does the publication of news adequately consider the costs of intervention?
Release does not set the HPV Screening Target – which would include a test kit, analysis, and a follow-up clinical visit. However, the publication explicitly states that "there are more work to be done, such as identifying ways to make the self-collection process more efficient and cost-effective." This recognition is enough to get it a satisfactory rating here.
Does the publication of news adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment / test / product / procedure?
This is an awkward issue, because it is not clear how to define the relevant benefit. The document itself defines the aim of the study as an assessment of the "validity and acceptability" of sampling of HPV screening samples. If part of the "acceptance" assessment was to determine whether the mailing packages for self-help improved screening estimates, would the benefit be defined as a successful submission of a screening sample? If so, publishing failed, as the readers were not even told how many women received reviews by mail (284 women, according to a related article). However, the importance is easier to address. How many samples were collected in comparison with other screening tests? The release deals with this head. It states that the self-employment test at home showed that 12.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections. In-clinics, self-assembled tests show that 15.5% had high-risk infections. And the collected tests showed that 11.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections. These are difficult numbers, and we will give the release of the use of suspicion of this. However, these three different issues raise some issues, and this release does not do a good job of addressing. More about it down there.
Does the publication of the news adequately explain / quantify the damage to the intervention?
The release did not address two key potential damage, or the failure to identify someone with a high-risk HPV, i "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 case because the HPV screening has experience of problems with both specificity and sensitivity – and because only the release clearly shows that people are diagnosed as high risks in some screening tests, but not others. The disadvantage of someone who is at high risk is obviously problematic. But when it is said that it faces significant health risks that you are not actually facing, there may be consequences for future health care, with the consequences of physical and financial.
Other potential injuries could have a certain speed of the patient who sent the test but did not follow, leaving the clinicians with positive tests and patients who were lost to follow, which would shorten the impact of the screening.
Does the publication of the news seem to understand the quality of the evidence?
This comes down to a very simple problem: publishing gives key information to readers and then it does not explain. This concern relates to the lack of comparisons in screening results in three types of tests: at home, self-assertive tests show that 12.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections; in the clinic, self-assay tests show that 15.5% have high-risk HPV infection; and the collected tests showed that 11.4% of women had a high risk of HPV infection.
For most readers, the difference between 11.4% and 15.5% seems to be much more than 4%. If they did mathematics at home, they would see that eight people (out of 193) were diagnosed as high-risk in one scenario, but not in the other. What gives? However, this release relates only to a quote entitled "We found a similar discovery between samocopying and the collection of doctors." It's not useful. Additionally, the release refers more often to the fact that "all women who have found high-quality cervical lesions … were positive for high-risk HPV in the sampled ones themselves." However, their release does not tell them that this group consisted of less than 10 people, or the degree to which it can be extrapolated to a larger population. In short, it is important to address the sensitivity and specificity when writing about a diagnostic tool.
Does the news release start the disease?
HPV – a particular particular HPV strain – can significantly increase the risk of cervical cancer. No doubt about that. However, not all women who work with HPV will get cervical cancer. There is no doubt that. In fact, the CDC notes that 80 percent of women affected HPV by age 50, and the National Cancer Institute estimates that less than one percent of women will contract cervical cancer during their lifetime. It may be difficult to emphasize the importance of HPV screening without moving into a "disinfecting" territory. This release goes to the line, but it does not go beyond.
Total score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory