Michael Joyce is a writer-producer at HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Here’s a perfect storm.
Take several common diseases that affect millions of people — like antibiotic-resistant infections, Alzheimer’s disease, major depression and bipolar disease — and then write headlines about recent (or old!) studies on these illnesses that hint at hope.
But then, in the ensuing article, don’t give your readers evidence to support your hopeful headline.
What is that? Irresponsible? Unethical? Or just sloppy journalism?
Regardless of what you call it, it’s such a pervasive problem that we see it daily. Especially with news releases.
One of our primary motivations in regularly publishing “Headline vs Study” is to get reporters and PR writers to stop and ask themselves: Is this headline accurate or is it offering misinformation or — worse yet — false hope?
Here’s a look at some headlines going back to October 31st, many of which walk that fine line of offering false hope to some understandably vulnerable people.
Headline: Scientists make significant breakthrough on superbug-killing antibiotic teixobactin
Study: No human research = no “breakthrough.” Period.
Our review: “Only a fraction of a percent of experimental drugs that produce positive laboratory test results survive the hurdles of animal and human testing. Especially when the need is so great, as is the case with antibiotic resistant infections, news releases should not proclaim success prematurely.”
Headline: Using Radar to Make Breast Surgery Easier for Women
Study: There is no study here. It’s worth noting that the manufacturers of the radar device — called the ‘Savi Scout’ — got FDA approval for commercial sales three years ago, but were not required to conduct clinical trials to assess safety and efficacy. This is not an uncommon practice, and worrisome enough that we’ve written this primer: “Why ‘approved’ medical devices in the US may not be safe or effective.”
Our review: Theoretically, this is a promising technology that could save time, money, and patient discomfort when compared to the existing method for marking tumors … which involves placing a wire marker under ultrasound. But theoretically doesn’t cut it. More rigorous studies are needed. Until then, headlines which make promises without supporting evidence are premature.
Headline: Simple Electrocardiogram Can Determine Whether a Patient Has Major Depression or Bipolar Disorder, Study Finds
Study: The study measured heart rate variability and inflammatory biomarkers. It did not prove such parameters could predict these two common mental illnesses, as the headline suggests.
Our review: Using language such as “groundbreaking” or “major breakthrough in psychiatric and primary care practices” — and not backing it up with data — is reckless. Especially when discussing very preliminary findings (with significant limitations) related to two diseases that affect millions of people who are understandably eager for new information.
Headline: Blood From Young People Safe and Just Might Help Alzheimer’s Patients
Study: The results of this small, observational “proof of concept” study ended up as an abstract at a meeting last month. It has not not been peer-reviewed or published. The research question: Do these infusions improve the mental functioning of Alzheimer’s patients? The findings: They don’t.
Our review: “The study has less than a dozen participants. There was no measurable data … its ‘conclusions’ are basically the observations/opinion of caregivers as to changes in these patients … the beginning of ‘real’ clinical trials is at least a year off and there’s no guarantee that they will take place.”
Headline: Blood Thinners May Also Protect Brains of A-Fib Patients
Study: An observational cohort study that cannot prove that anticoagulant use reduces the risk of dementia. [See our primer on the limitations of observational studies]
Our review: “The story uses inappropriate language throughout, including in the headline and lead sentence, to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship between anticoagulants and dementia.” Reviewers found this sentence …”New research suggests they [blood thinners] help prevent dementia as well as stroke” … to be completely unwarranted given the study design.
You can find more from our Headline vs. Study series HERE
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