“The Use of Superlatives in Cancer Research” is the title of an article in the journal JAMA Oncology this week, co-authored by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH and medical student Matthew V. Abola. The topic should ring familiar with anyone who has followed HealthNewsReview.org for any period of time.
They write:
“Whereas most new cancer drugs afford modest benefits, approved drugs or those in develop-ment may be heralded as “game changers” or “breakthroughs” in the lay press. These news articles may be important sources of information to patients, the public, and investors—with a broader reach than medical journal articles. However, omission of medical context or use of inflated descriptors may lead to misunderstandings among readers.”
So they looked for 10 superlative terms used in reference to cancer drugs in a Google news search over just 5 days’ time this past June. They found 94 news articles from 66 different news organizations that made 97 superlative mentions referring to 36 specific drugs. The 10 terms were:
Half of the drugs described had not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. For 5 of 36 (14%) drugs, superlatives were used in the absence of clinical data (ie, based solely on mouse, cell culture, and/or preclinical work).
And who used the superlative terms? 55% of the time it was journalists, followed by physicians (27%), industry experts (9%), patients (8%) and one member of Congress.
None of this is surprising to us, as we’ve scrutinized health care journalism for decades. In fact, our 15-year old article, “7 Words You Shouldn’t Use in Medical News,” included three of the terms used in this new analysis. And our work goes far beyond a five-day sample of news stories – with 10 years of examples recorded on our website. (I will admit: It’s curious to me that our work wasn’t cited in this article.)
So, if you want breakthroughs, search for uses on our site.
We’ve called for a ban on the grating term, game-changer.
Miracle? Yep, we’ve got ’em: Enbrel, Acomplia, Gleevec, Dimebon, avocado, Lupron and on and on and on….
What’s the big deal about cures? Dime a dozen if you follow news coverage over time.
We’ve collected more lifesavers than a kid in a candy store.
We shatter the Richter scale with the number of groundbreaking stories we’ve reviewed.
Words matter. Framing matters. Hype causes harm. Let the evidence speak for itself. Good evidence doesn’t need sugar-coating with superlatives.
Update:
Here is some coverage of the study from other outlets:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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.
Tom
October 29, 2015 at 10:44 amWritten by Dr. Prasad and a medical student? Why not give the student’s name?
Kevin Lomangino
October 29, 2015 at 10:55 amGood point. I added it. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Kevin Lomangino
Managing Editor
Paul Alper
November 2, 2015 at 7:57 amPrasad is the co-author of a 2015 book, “Ending Medical Reversals; Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives.” Be sure to review it because it contains a discussion of why many procedures which are plausibly put forward as beneficial, however, turn it to be useless or harmful .
Alia Bucciarelli
November 2, 2015 at 8:07 amThanks for bringing this article to my attention! We just covered using superlatives last week in the class that I teach on writing about health and medicine. I’m going to share this post with my students for additional context.
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