The story doesn’t really explain the differences between the standard and experimental therapies in the small trial.
The headline and text repeatedly imply the approach could “prevent women from getting HIV infection,” but saves the fact that the study is in rabbits for the very end.
Most significantly, it doesn’t tell us about the $150,000 annual price tag for each patient.
When the stakes are this high, it’s critical that news stories give a clear picture of the proven benefits, limitations of the evidence, potential side effects, and costs.
The release also claims that the device reduces costs by 50% and PTSD by 90% — again without providing any evidence or study references.
An important financial conflict of interest and any discussion of potential harms were left out of the release.
Still, we would have liked to see comment from an independent source on how this news might be misconstrued, especially by readers worried about their own risk for developing the disease.
As new drug combos come on line for difficult to treat cancers like uterine serous carcinoma (USC), researchers claim success in terms of months, not years. Increasingly, months of progression-free survival — not overall survival — is reported as the clinical trial endpoint. But taking into account harms and costs, is that cause for celebration?
Can ‘thinking differently’ help sooth chronic back pain? Hard to tell from HealthDay’s fuzzy reporting https://t.co/hGK912PWDY
Tips for Understanding Studies
Podcast: Doctors who blog
Podcast: Timothy Caulfield – fighting Goop and cheating death
Podcast: The promise of precision medicine