Published results in just 3 people drew widespread international news attention.
NBC News, which has a history of baldness treatment hype, did it again, putting a graphic behind anchor Brian Williams that played question mark journalism, asking, “Cure for Baldness?” Short answer: No. Not yet. Not after good results in 3 people. But NBC had to do more with it. Anchorman Williams joked about “a blatant bit of type-casting on our part” because their story was reported by hair-challenged Harry Smith, who ended his piece laughing about “those of us who long ago stopped dreaming about a head full of hair.”
But it’s not a laughing matter when Smith reported that the Columbia researchers “look to be on their way to curing hair loss.” What expertise does Smith have to make that projection? For people who have alopecia areata, the condition in question, this is serious stuff.
The online NBC News story at least reported about the drug in question: “a one-month supply costs more than $9,000” and “can cause anemia.”
The New York Times also gave the tiny study big play – on page A9. At least the Times explained that the research was done in people with “alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease afflicting about 1 percent of men and women, causing hair to fall out, often all over the body. … The disease differs from other types of hair loss, including male pattern baldness, and there is no evidence the drug will work for those conditions. Experts caution that even for alopecia areata, it is too early to know if the treatment will work for most patients and if there are significant side effects or safety concerns.”
However, the Times was too vague about the numbers. It explained that the drug ruxolitinib had been tested on seven women and five men. But then it vaguely reported:
The Times story did not explain that the Nature Medicine journal article only reported results in the first three people tested. So any reference to anything happening in most of the “seven women and five men” refers to unpublished data. The story should have emphasized that. For example, did the independent doctors they interviewed review only the published data, or something more?
The Times interviewed one doctor who said “the results were encouraging enough that he would consider prescribing ruxolitinib to patients who could not be treated with other methods and who understood potential side effects. But the Times also interviewed a dermatologist who cautioned that the study participants were:
…“treated systemically with a very toxic drug” that can cause liver and blood problems, infections and other ailments.
Although the patients have experienced few side effects, the study is small and not a randomized trial comparing ruxolitinib to other treatments.
HealthDay published one of the weaker stories we saw. They didn’t interview the researchers, but lifted a quote from a Columbia University Medical Center news release:
“We’ve only begun testing the drug in patients, but if the drug continues to be successful and safe, it will have a dramatic positive impact on the lives of people with this disease,” study leader Dr. Raphael Clynes said in a Columbia news release.
Time.com didn’t mention side effects or costs, but stated that “the findings will be a great relief to sufferers.” Really? Or maybe the story should explain why it’s too early to make that leap.
—————————–
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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.
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