Just two days ago I wrote about Dr. Michael Kirsch’s excellent blog post “Beware Surrogate Markers.” In it he wrote:
“Why do some medical studies, which achieve breaking news status, often fall so short of our expectations? Physicians are cynical about these medical milestones, since they are often short-lived. Today’s cure may become tomorrow’s disease.
…
The public needs to understand this issue. Think about this the next time you read a news flash that promises a medical miracle. Chances are that the miracle is a mirage.”
Need examples? Two days later – just in the course of our limited sweep on HealthNewsReview.org, we’ve already seen three examples of stories failing to convey the limitations of surrogate markers.
The worst was by WebMD, reporting on “pro-inflammatory markers” to back up anti-aging claims. Read our full story review at the previous link.
Then both USA Today and AP spent varying amounts of time reporting on the surrogate endpoint of higher HDL cholesterol levels in a study of low carb versus low fat diets.
Reviewers wrote in the USA Today story review:
Rather than report simply on this surrogate end point, do we know anything about what these HDL changes mean in terms of their risk of heart attack?
But the AP story chose the HDL angle as a primary focus, and our reviewers commented:
“Americans are already overly obsessed with ‘scores.’ Emphaszing the HDL difference without adequately explaining its real significance in peoples’ lives feels like more scoreboard-watching without knowing the rules of the game.”
Ivan Oransky has already launched Embargo Watch and Retraction Watch blogs to track recurring events.
Has it come to this with stories about surrogate markers or intermediate endpoints? Does this topic need its own blog?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
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