And it may happen on many other days as well – with them – or with others. But these two got our goat.
1. New MRI MIght Help Spot Heart Disease Early: Study
It’s entirely based on a news release from the journal Radiology. There is no independent analysis of claims such as this:
“The findings suggest that this technique could be used to screen people at risk for coronary artery disease.”
Really? After a report on testing in just “26 people with at least one risk factor for coronary artery disease and 12 healthy people” ? Before making that kind of leap, maybe one should consider just what would be involved with such screening – in whom, at what cost, with what sensitivity/specificity, leading to what rate of false positives/false negatives, and at what cost, etc.?
And lest you think this is a one shot deal that maybe nobody saw – no harm, no foul – look at how widely this story was picked up.
2. There was also broad distribution of HealthDay’s “Marijuana extract may help ease muscle stiffness in MS: Study.” Maybe other news organizations reacted to marijuana in the headline. Maybe they reacted to the gravity of MS. Maybe they simply reacted to stuff to throw up on their website from a news service. Or, more likely, there was no reaction by humans at all but, rather, automated feed-grabbing to fill space. But, as with the MRI story above, the story was based entirely on a journal news release. No independent expert perspective was provided to dwell on claims made in the story, such as:
“The findings suggest that the marijuana extract could be a useful treatment for muscle problems in MS patients and could provide effective pain relief, especially for those in considerable pain.”
Without any independent critical analysis, with no evidence provided that any work went into this story beyond reading and regurgitating a news release, how much trust should readers put into this kind of journalism? MS is not a topic that should be treated lightly or given short shrift by news-release-journalism.
Caveat lector.
I wish that those who wrote news releases for medical journals would at least list our 10 story review criteria at the end of their news releases to remind journalists – and consumers who may simply receive a rewritten news release disguised as an independently-vetted news story – that there are certain things that perhaps should be considered prior to publication and distribution.
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