You’re seeing lots of cardiovascular news this week because the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology is going on in New Orleans.
I applaud the health news coverage of the Wall Street Journal, but even their coverage shows a bias toward the positive and against negative findings.
In today’s WSJ, the front page of the “Marketplace” section, page B1, has a story on the “blockbuster drug plavix” and a pack of new rivals on the horizon.
But negative findings on two other drug studies are relegated to pages B6 and B7, deep in the paper and deeper in that section.
Stories headlined “Crestor Fails to Clear A Bar in Arterial Study” and “Two Heart-Failure Drugs Fail to Reduce Death, Admissions” were important, but got neither the quality nor quantity of space given to the generally positive Plavix (and rivals) story.
American consumers need to be reminded that not all drugs are blockbusters, and that hopes at the beginning of trials are often dashed at the end. Page 1 placement would drive that point home.
(But at least the WSJ reports on the negative findings somewhere – don’t get me wrong.)
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Bill Gleason
March 27, 2007 at 8:50 pmThis negative news seems to be getting
plenty of exposure (from CNN)
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) — More than half a million people a year with chest pain are getting an unnecessary or premature procedure to unclog their arteries because drugs are just as effective, suggests a landmark study that challenges one of the most common practices in heart care.
The stunning results found that angioplasty did not save lives or prevent heart attacks in non-emergency heart patients.
An even bigger surprise: Angioplasty gave only slight and temporary relief from chest pain, the main reason it is done.
“By five years, there was really no significant difference” in symptoms, said Dr. William Boden of Buffalo General Hospital in New York. “Few would have expected such results.”
He led the study and gave results Monday at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology. They also were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine and will be in the April 12 issue.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like