(See correction in the post above this one)
See the HealthNewsReview.org review of the CBS Evening News story, and of the USA Today story. Both 3 stars out of five. Both used the more impressive relative risk reduction figures rather than the more helpful absolute risk reduction stats. Neither explained the long history of research into aspirin and colon cancer – thereby again hyping the research as “revolutionary” – in USA Today’s words.
Thanks to Andrew Holtz for having a hand in both reviews.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Liz Szabo
August 13, 2009 at 6:09 pmGary and Andrew,
Much of the information that you found missing in our 1A story is in fact found in the accompanying sidebar, located on 4D (http://tinyurl.com/ks7sax). While you may take issue with our newspaper’s design — and our practice of breaking stories into mainbars and sidebars — it’s not quite fair to say that we neglected to provide the information entirely.
Your review is also inaccurate. Your review says we included only relative survival rates. In fact, the online Q&A (above) actually includes absolute survival rates for COX-2+ tumors, which you won’t find anywhere else. Although the JAMA article itself didn’t provide them, authors computed these rates at our request, and they’re included exclusively at usatoday.com.
Here they are: “Among patients whose tumors overproduced COX-2, 76% of those who took aspirin after diagnosis were alive 10 years later, compared to 67% of those who didn’t take aspirin,” Chan says.
Both the print and online Q&A also include important side effect information — including the fact that aspirin’s toxicity is far less than that of standard chemo.
Q: Aspirin is far cheaper and less toxic than most other cancer treatments. Is there any harm in trying it, even without ironclad proof that it works?
A: Patients should ask their doctors’ advice, Chan says.
Aspirin can reduce the risk of heart attacks in high-risk patients, so certain patients may have other good reasons to take it, Chan says. But aspirin also can cause gastrointestinal bleeding that can be serious, so doctors are reluctant to tell patients to take it until they have solid evidence that its benefits outweigh any potential harm.
Gary Schwitzer
August 13, 2009 at 8:50 pmLiz,
We apologize for missing the printed sidebar that accompanied the main story. I have now posted an apology and a correction on the HealthNewsReview.org website.
I have never taken issue with your newspaper’s design — or your practice of breaking stories into mainbars and sidebars.
We currently only review what is in print, not what appears on the web. This is how we review 49 other newspapers and three magazines. Also for the TV networks – we currently only review what was broadcast – not what appeared on the networks’ websites. So, while you managed to get the absolute risk reduction stats onto the website, those who read only the paper didn’t get that crucial information.
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