This is a balanced and carefully written report on a newly published study linking vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk.
The news release implies that rivaroxaban was being compared to other anticoagulants when what was actually being compared was an early vs. late discharge strategy.
Use of use of words like “breakthrough” and a phrase suggesting the drug offers “new hope” for patients detract from the cautious aspects of this release.
Without a control group in the study to prove otherwise, it’s possible the consumption of two cups of any fruit, or even any food, may affect systolic blood pressure.
This release calling on dermatologists to prescribe spironolactone as an alternative to oral antibiotics for acne treatment is missing several key pieces of information including evidence, benefits, cost and potential harms.
While researchers saw slightly slower cancer growth, patients receiving immunotherapy on average felt worse, while not living any longer.
The release doesn’t mention costs or study limitations, and the lead offers false hope by stating that a device “common in optometrists’ offices” may be the key to faster schizophrenia diagnosis.
The release appears to claim definitively that the research proves that Janssen’s anticoagulant is better — a claim not supported by the research — but it’s a message that’s left with readers.
The release also doesn’t mention potential harms of PCI, put the size of the benefit in context, or disclose conflicts of interest.
Compared to many news releases we review that have to do with rodent research, this one was more cautious with its language than most.
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims