HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Swine flu vaccine risk?
August 17, 2009
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed bibendum, lectus quis rhoncus molestie, massa leo malesuada sapien, non mollis mauris libero eget sem. Nulla facilisi. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Donec dignissim rutrum condimentum. Fusce venenatis ultrices est, commodo feugiat elit faucibus et. Nulla ornare ligula eget lorem eleifend pellentesque. Curabitur aliquet molestie risus rutrum mollis. Nulla facilisi. Aenean condimentum pulvinar velit id iaculis. Vivamus quis libero lorem. Suspendisse sit amet libero nisi, a ornare augue. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Quisque ullamcorper nulla ut lacus ornare in rhoncus magna consequat. Donec sed massa dolor.
Our Review Summary
This story makes the main point clear: that a single dose of the new H1N1 flu vaccine may be effective enough that the initial plan to give people two doses won.t be necessary.
However, important caveats about the small size and rushed nature of these preliminary trials are buried deep in the story, where they would be missed by readers who see only the lead paragraphs. While readers do get a sense that officials have been trying decide on the best policies despite scant evidence, they could come away from this story with the mistaken impression that officials now have all the evidence they need about how the new vaccine will work. For instance, there is no mention that these small trials cannot answer concerns about of the potential risk of Guillain-Barre disease that was seen in rare cases after vaccination against the 1976 swine flu.
Also, juxtaposing the annual death toll from seasonal flu with reports of H1N1 flu spreading widely in schools could lead to the unsupported impression that many thousands of students are likely to die from H1N1 flu.
The story does tell the news that officials will probably change their recommendation and tell people to get only one H1N1 flu shot, but at almost 900 words long, it could have told more.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story reports that H1N1 vaccinations are expected to be available in mid-October and that seasonal flu shots are available now.
The story should have mentioned the typical range of charges for seasonal flu and whether there would be any difference in the price of the H1N1 flu shots.
Total Score: 6 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.