Heart rhythm specialist physician-blogger John Mandrola begins his blog posting today with that line, referring to recent news about a study of ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) also reducing the risk of dementia.
In it, he links to our site because of our frequent cautions about overenthusiasm for preliminary findings presented in abstracts at medical/scientific meetings. He writes:
“I am not saying the study is dishonest or false, just preliminary.
The troubling aspect for a provider of AF care is the obvious and overt sensationalism. Taking an abstract and proclaiming that AF ablation reduces dementia risk is irresponsible and misleading.
Shouldn’t the storyline read something closer to this:
An observational, single-center, uncontrolled and un-blinded preliminary report–presented in abstract form only–suggested that a cohort of AF patients who were healthy enough to undergo AF ablation had a lower risk of dementia. The data are yet to be published in a peer reviewed journal, and the dementia-preventative effects of AF ablation, if any, are yet to be defined.
AF therapy is complicated enough already. Over-sensationalized misinformation in the lay press make it even harder to explain the issues at hand to patients.”
It’s a smart analysis. Read the whole blog post.
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
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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