What research was conducted to show this app is beneficial? And how solid was that research?
When there are so many bigger issues worth writing about, why is a small study involving 10 mice making headlines?
Also: Neither the story nor the news release talked about the steep cost of this relatively new class of anti-inflammatories.
This is a story about a case study involving one man and an experimental device. Such an anecdote is an imperfect way to report medical news and therefore needs lots of backstopping.
Readers need reminding that the manufacturer of a drug has an extremely strong interest in getting their drug used as early as possible in a disease process and that measures of “benefit” need to correspond to this early use.
Do we really need more PARP inhibitors beyond the one that’s already approved? If so, why? This story didn’t clarify these things for readers.
The story shares the seemingly good news for lung cancer patients without noting that the drug under investigation only amounted to a few extra months of cancer not spreading, compared to standard treatment.
It also attempted to discuss cost, but provided no prices, and didn’t go far enough in detailing the potential harms of either treatment.