It’s not clear from the release if it’s touting progesterone or a patented test for determining which women might benefit from such therapy.
It’s premature to call results from a short duration, very small phase 1 safety trial life-saving and “practice changing.”
More numbers — length of the study, cost of the tablets, measures of improvement — would have been helpful.
This release on a study of mice teeth cells oversells promise of a dental treatment for humans. None of the key words “mice,” “mouse” or “animal” appear even once in the text.
We’re not sure from the release who the target audience is: dry eye sufferers or industry analysts?
This study might have important public health implications but the release will leave readers confused about its message. Are readers being encouraged to consume more zinc, and if so how? Through supplementation or zinc fortified foods? It’s not at all clear.
The release states: “vaccines are more effective in DCIS” but there’s broad disagreement whether these low-grade, noninvasive conditions are cancer.
The release claims a 16% risk reduction in study volunteers with high triglycerides and 14% reduced risk in those with high LDL cholesterol. But according to the meta-analysis, only 6 of 18 randomized controlled trials (RCT) studied patients with high triglycerides and only 5 of 14 RCTs looked at patients with high LDL cholesterol.