NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
J.daniel Flaysakier
December 8, 2011 at 7:43 amI am attending the SABCS meeting. There are a lot of ‘weak studies’ with non significant outcomes or questionable design. But once they are presented in press conferences they lose their original sin, no discussion and immediately.online. One of the main news agency, Agence France Presse is not even here but works from press releases. One of the studies which was highly criticized during the sessions has become a ‘New standard of care’ Pity !
Gregory Dennis
December 14, 2011 at 10:36 amBoyce and Daniel make excellent points. Nowhere is this problem more obvious than in reporting on breast cancer. For example, a report out of the San Antonio conference about a study on breast brachytherapy – covering an antiquated form of the therapy used before several, notably more effective methods were even available to patients – has caused tremendous concern and even panic among women who received brachytherapy.
We put together a teleconference yesterday featuring for top physicians who are experts in breast brachytherapy. The call was organized at the researchers’ request because they wanted to get the word out about problems with this study. (Disclosure: my firm represents a maker of a form of breast brachytherapy – but note that it was competing forms of breast brachytherapy, , not my clients’, that were highlighted by the doctors in their comments on yesterday’s teleconference.)
More background at http://dowlingdennis.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/problems-with-new-breast-cancer-radiation-study.
Gregory Dennis
December 14, 2011 at 10:36 amBoyce and Daniel make excellent points. Nowhere is this problem more obvious than in reporting on breast cancer. For example, a report out of the San Antonio conference about a study on breast brachytherapy – covering an antiquated form of the therapy used before several, notably more effective methods were even available to patients – has caused tremendous concern and even panic among women who received brachytherapy.
We put together a teleconference yesterday featuring for top physicians who are experts in breast brachytherapy. The call was organized at the researchers’ request because they wanted to get the word out about problems with this study. (Disclosure: my firm represents a maker of a form of breast brachytherapy – but note that it was competing forms of breast brachytherapy, , not my clients’, that were highlighted by the doctors in their comments on yesterday’s teleconference.)
More background at http://dowlingdennis.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/problems-with-new-breast-cancer-radiation-study.
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