Do you write news releases? And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
The release would have benefited from a strong caution that outcomes from research in mice are seldom replicated in human studies.
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.
Descriptions of the limitations of the research never found their way into this news release.
More information on the harms, costs and conflicts of interests of the researchers would have made this a better news release.
The release includes no mention of cost, harms from false positive and negative results, or potential conflicts 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.
Weekly Digest [link corrections] - What did journalists overlook about the Apple Watch 'heart monitor'? - https://t.co/erEOxoNNfl
Weekly Digest--What did journalists overlook about the Apple Watch 'heart monitor?' - https://t.co/uuO29BeEij
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims
Podcast: The problematic promise of a ‘cure’ for Alzheimer’s disease
Podcast: Emergency docs highlight toxic health care myths
Podcast: The clear and present danger of too much health care