The news release implies that rivaroxaban was being compared to other anticoagulants when what was actually being compared was an early vs. late discharge strategy.
This is an oversight we see often in news stories reporting on research about new cancer screening tests.
Use of use of words like “breakthrough” and a phrase suggesting the drug offers “new hope” for patients detract from the cautious aspects of this release.
The story would have benefited from an outside expert weighing on the study and its potential ramifications and — more importantly — the potential harms of a false-positive test, which are not insignificant.
Without a control group in the study to prove otherwise, it’s possible the consumption of two cups of any fruit, or even any food, may affect systolic blood pressure.
Technology isn’t a panacea and news stories should quantify the purported benefits just as they would for drugs and other interventions.
This release calling on dermatologists to prescribe spironolactone as an alternative to oral antibiotics for acne treatment is missing several key pieces of information including evidence, benefits, cost and potential harms.
The story makes sweeping statements, without support, favoring the use of ketamine to treat a vast array of ills.
Here’s a prime example of how Big Pharma issues misleading news releases to journalists https://t.co/m8kR98nH6O #xarelto #JNJ
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims
Podcast: The new & (un)improved doctor-patient relationship
Podcast: Gut Punch – Marketing Microbiome Hype
Podcast: Doctors who blog