This story is a textbook example of bad reporting.
The headline and opening paragraph combine two completely different categories of error--"wrong" and "late"--so that it is possible to say "most Americans".
The story then goes on to talk exclusively about "wrong" as if that was the dominant category. "Late" is never mentioned.
The abstract of the ($60) report talks about errors only, but reading between the lines "late" is subsumed under the author's notion of "error".
So this story tells us nothing about the actual rate of misdiagnosis, but it leaves unwary readers with the probably false impression that "most Americans will experience misdiagnosis".
This is not to say that misdiagnosis is not a serious problem. But then, so is really bad reporting.
The headline and opening paragraph combine two completely different categories of error--"wrong" and "late"--so that it is possible to say "most Americans".
The story then goes on to talk exclusively about "wrong" as if that was the dominant category. "Late" is never mentioned.
The abstract of the ($60) report talks about errors only, but reading between the lines "late" is subsumed under the author's notion of "error".
So this story tells us nothing about the actual rate of misdiagnosis, but it leaves unwary readers with the probably false impression that "most Americans will experience misdiagnosis".
This is not to say that misdiagnosis is not a serious problem. But then, so is really bad reporting.