Do you write news releases? And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
This piece reads like an advertisement for a new prescription formulation of fish oil. Our reviewers describe what’s missing.
The story does express some limitations of the study findings, which we appreciate.
The story also did not mention that the author acknowledged being a paid “advocate” for pain patients, which could present a conflict of interest.
The story doesn’t address numerous limitations with this research and failed to scrutinize the quality of the evidence.
The story takes the company’s word for the announced benefit without evaluating the claims and fails to address cost or side effects in any way, despite the fact that both drugs are already on the market.
The story included multiple independent sources to provide perspective, and it included a few key details about the study.
Also, a host of potential harms from weight-loss drugs went mostly unmentioned.
The specifics of the study are glossed over, no connection is made between brain activity and clinical symptoms or outcomes, and there’s no mention of cost or potential harms.
Also, discussion of carotid artery screening of people who do not have symptoms is mixed up with the reporter’s experience with testing done in order to diagnose the cause of his symptoms.
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims