It is so easy to get a story like this wrong. But this story mostly got it right.
Appropriate discussion of possible limitations of the research. Good context. Appropriate warnings to women being treated for breast cancer NOT to start taking aspirin.
As one expert said in the story, "If true, it would certainly be a relatively easy, inexpensive, potentially safe intervention for women who have had breast cancer." But the story made clear that’s a big IF.
Cost of aspirin is not in question. Not applicable.
Only relative risk reduction data were provided: "They found that women who took aspirin two to five days per week were 60% less likely to have a recurrence and 71% less likely to die from breast cancer. Those taking it more frequently had a 43% lower risk of recurrence and a 64% lower risk of death."
60% of what? 71% less likely than what? Etc. Please provide absolute data.
The story cautioned that aspirin can interfere with breast cancer treatment, "producing severe side effects."
Although the story didn’t specifically address the potential limitaitons of observational studies, it injected sufficient caveats, such as:
"The study’s authors described the findings as surprising and worthy of follow-up, but even they cautioned that survivors shouldn’t yet begin prophylactic aspirin use.
The new results could be because the process of metastasis of breast cancer is different than that of initiation and could thus be susceptible to influence by aspirin. Or it could be simply that there is some other shared characteristic of women who took aspirin that produced the beneficial effect. …
But, (one expert) added, researchers "have been tricked by things like this before, especially in cancer epidemiology." The most notorious example was a study that showed a clear statistical link between drinking coffee and developing lung cancer. "The problem turned out to be that smokers drank a lot of coffee. When you controlled for smoking, everything disappeared."
No disease-mongering of breast cancer.
One independent source was quoted.
The story mentioned that there was no statistical suggestion of benefit from acetaminophen use – or from once a week aspirin use.
Availability of aspirin is not in question. Not applicable.
Good context was provided. For example:
The research is not without foundation. Metastasis is clearly linked to inflammation, and aspirin reduces inflammation. Studies in laboratory dishes show that aspirin can inhibit the growth and invasiveness of breast cancer cells and stimulate the immune system to attack the cells.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely on a news release.