I’m drooling, but I shouldn’t be. John Carey of BusinessWeek has the cover story this week, entitled, “Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?” I’m not going to post an excerpt because I want everyone to read the entire article. It’s that good – and that rare. I’m drooling over it but I shouldn’t be, because the themes he explores should be part of all news stories making claims about new ideas in health care.
Carey explores absolute vs. relative risk statistics – showing how the latter are abused and are misleading to the general public to trump up drug benefits. But he also is one of the only journalists I’ve ever seen explore and explain another statistical tool – the Number Needed to Treat or NNT.
See his insert on this important statistic. It will raise questions about the way drugs are promoted and sold to hundreds of thousands of people who won’t benefit from their use.
When I wrote the Statement of Principles of the Association of Health Care Journalists, I urged health care journalists to “consider explaining the ‘number needed to treat’ – the number of people you would have to treat with the experimental intervention (compared with the control) to prevent one event.” And I included tips on how to do that. But it rarely, VERY rarely ever happens.
Carey and BusinessWeek hit a home run with this cover story. Kudos to them. Keep up the good work. Let’s hope other journalists – and certainly consumers of news and health care – learn from this excellent piece of work.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.
Andrew Holtz
January 29, 2008 at 4:01 pmThanks for pointing out this piece.
It reminded me of an exchange I had with a group of physicians at a conference on evidence-based medicine. They were entirely focused on boosting the statin use among their high-risk patients.
When I commented that of course they couldn’t promise an individual patient that he (the case being discussed was a man) would definitely benefit, they were befuddled. They simply hadn’t wrapped their heads around the fact that even in a high-risk group, where the population benefit of statin use is well-documented (wiht NNTs better than 10), the overwhelmingly majority of individual patients will not alter their fate.
And as you say… it’s too bad such reporting isn’t run-of-the-mill.
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