HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Alternative to Statins Shows Promise
March 10, 2010
The headline sounds definitive. The research is not.
Our Review Summary
Headlines matter. When a story begins under the banner, "Alternative to Statin Shows Promise," it leads readers to immediately believe that an alternative exists. This drug isn't even on the market yet. Does it hold promise? How much promise can be established in a small, 12-week trial? Why is the hyperbolic language necessary? At the same time, important data - such as how big was the effect size - was missing.
Why This Matters:
It's way too early to draw any conclusions about the drug eprotirome. The strong cautionary comments from an independent expert at the end of the story are important, but will readers be swayed by the "promise" before they get to those comments?
Click on Criteria for definitions.
We really never learn the status of the drug eprotirome. Is it approved? Is it used for anything else now? Readers may assume that it is because the headline already labels it as an "alternative to statins."
There was no discussion of costs - not even a projection. If you can label something as an "alternative to statins" in the headline, then you can certainly at least project for readers what this "alternative" might cost.
There was no overt disease mongering in the story.
Overall, while there was some discussion of the need for more study to track possible long-term effects, there still was not enough emphasis on how limited are the conclusions that can be drawn from such a small, short-term (12 weeks) study.
The story says that the drug " did not cause the feared side effects on the heart and other organs that have plagued similar thyroid-based treatments." But can these side effects be expected to show up in a small, short-term trial?
Nonetheless, because of the strength of the concluding comments by the independent expert - "But if there is one thing we've learned about drugs in this arena, it's that we need large trials to see how they measure up in terms of risk and benefit...I'm not sure I'd want to sign up for that one before I had longer-term results. Being impotent is no fun."- we'll give this story the benefit of the doubt.
The story didn't put this study into the context of other research on alternatives to statins.
A major weakness of the story: it did not quantify the effects seen in the study in any way.
It's clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Important caveats were included in the independent expert's views at the end of the story.
Since results were not quantified in the story, we really don't even learn how the drug compared with statins alone.
Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.