Health News Review

Less than 4% of the 1,800+ stories we’ve reviewed were given the lowest 0-star score.  This is, unfortunately, one of them because it failed to address any of our criteria.

Our Review Summary

This story parrots a news release that itself misstates the conclusions and meaning of the study. It would be almost impossible for readers to learn anything useful from the report.

 

 


Why This Matters

Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease and the threat of it haunts many older adults, especially those with mild cognitive deficits.  The dual possibility of a method to identify those at risk for developing dementia early along with the ongoing efforts to develop anti amyloid treatments offer great hope.  Providing overly enthusiastic reviews serves no useful purpose other than to confuse the reader.


Criteria

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The cost of PET scans is not explained – and it is significant – ranging from $3,000 to $6,000.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

The story implies there are benefits, but does not explain what they might be. There’s this statement from the principal investigator,  “This provides an enormous opportunity for understanding the development of early Alzheimer’s disease and even a sound basis for the assessment of plaque-targeting therapies.”  Without some additional information, such as the general availability of “plaque targeting therapies” the reader is left with an incomplete story.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the potential harms of testing.

The story should have at least indicated that there is radiation involved.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

The lead sentence says beta amyloid plaques in the brain “may trigger” more memory loss than a genetic risk factor linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The last sentence notes that this study did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. Indeed, even if higher levels of beta amyloid plaques are associated with cognitive decline, it is still possible that the plaque levels are a symptom, rather than a cause of the disease process. This study wasn’t designed to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, so the story should not have suggested one.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

This story muddles the important distinction between the mere presence of beta amyloid plaques in the brain and actual dementia.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

It appears that no one was interviewed for this story. The quotes came from a news release.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of standard techniques for assessing signs of cognitive decline or dementia.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

The story does not discuss whether this sort of PET scan is available outside of research settings.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the broader context of research in this area.

Not Satisfactory

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

Not Satisfactory

The story appears to be based entirely on a new release. There is a note at the bottom of the story saying the source is an American Academy of Neurology news release. But many may not understand that the note means there was no real reporting involved.

What’s more, the first quote is not labeled as coming from the news release.

 

 

Total Score: 0 of 10 Satisfactory


We Welcome Comments

But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it. Please see more on our comments policy.