Can daily aspirin help ward off cancer?

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The cost of aspirin is not in question.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

Much better than the competing WebMD story, this story appropriately stated:

“People who said they took daily aspirin – whether ‘baby’ or adult strength – had a 16-percent lower risk of dying from cancer than non-users overall, Thun and his colleagues found.

For men, the difference came out to 103 fewer cancer deaths a year per 100,000 people; for women, the number was 42.”

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story acknowledged side effects such as serious stomach bleeds and pointed out that this study didn’t look at overall death rates or side effects.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

This story put “considerable limitations” in the second sentence.  It also later described “detection bias.”  And it clearly pointed out:

“Because the study wasn’t a clinical trial, it’s hard to know if the findings can be chalked up to aspirin or if something else is at play.”

We wish the story hadn’t used the term “the effect was strongest” since this clearly suggests cause-and-effect was established by the study, which was not the case.  But because the caveats about limitations were early, strong, and throughout, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The input from independent expert Dr. Kausik Ray was important.  And it pointed out the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force discouraging the use of aspirin “to stave off colorectal cancer in people at average risk for the disease.”

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The WebMD story did a better job on this simply by including one line about “other strategies will also reduce the risk of cancer” – regular physical activity, healthy weight, not smoking.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

The availability of aspirin is not in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story noted other research in this field:

“Medical guidelines in the U.S. already urge people to take low doses of aspirin to prevent heart disease if the predicted benefits outweigh the risk of side effects, or if they have already suffered a heart attack.

Whether those recommendations should be broadened to include cancer prevention is still up in the air, however.

Earlier this year, an analysis of previous clinical trials showed that people on aspirin were less likely to die of cancer than those not on the medication, with a 37-percent drop in cancer deaths observed from five years onwards.

The new report, published Friday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is based on real-life observations instead of experiments. It includes a decade’s worth of data from more than 100,000 men and women in the U.S., most over 60 and all of them non-smokers.”

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.