Joy Victory is Deputy Managing Editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets at @thejoyvictory.
We’ve been closely tracking healthcare-related news releases for several years now, systematically reviewing more than 550 using our 10 criteria.
We can’t get to every news release we see–the churn is vast. That’s why we’re starting a new ongoing blog series, problematic PR releases, looking at some of the big-picture problems we see in news releases, focusing on what’s been sent to journalists recently.
As we collected examples for this inaugural post, a pattern quickly emerged: There were lots of news releases that claim some new drug or intervention was shown to work in a study–yet no data whatsoever was provided to back up that claim. How can readers evaluate how well something works–and what difference it might make to them in their lives–if there are no hard numbers to show what the study found?
Let’s take a look at some of the top offenders we spotted this week:
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
The news release states that “fitness trackers can be valuable tools for assessing the quality of life and daily functioning of cancer patients during treatment.” There’s even a quote from Cedar-Sinai doctor claiming that “we’re are at the beginning of a revolution in healthcare in which digital wearables…will allow remote monitoring of cancer patients and anticipate the need for intervention before symptoms occur.”
A revolution? That’s powerful. So what were the actual study results? How big is the potential revolution? We’re not told.
Lawson Health Research Institute
As we’ve written numerous times, liquid biopsies garner a lot of headlines and, all too often, false hope. The idea that we can accurately detect cancer with a blood test is alluring–but far more tricky than most news releases want to acknowledge. It’s no different for a blood test used in this manner–to help guide treatment.
The release states a new study “is one of the first to demonstrate that a blood test can predict how patients with advanced prostate cancer will respond to specific treatments, leading to improved survival.”
If true, that’s a big deal. So we immediately scanned–and re-scanned–the release to find the numbers showing said improved survival. No luck.
University of Rochester Medical Center
Another blood test, this time one that purports “to help doctors determine if people who’ve experienced a blow to the head could have a traumatic brain injury such as brain bleeding or bruising.”
Again, this sounds like a big deal–one that could improve treatment for countless injured patients. We learn that the FDA seems to agree–it’s already given the blood test “fast track” approval. The news release also explains that a published study including more than 2,000 patients proves this is so. We get lots and lots of other important-sounding details, including how the test’s effectiveness at diagnosing brain injuries means it “could eliminate needless radiation; allow people to get in and out of the emergency room faster; and lower health care costs.”
What we don’t get are the study findings.
Update, 8/1/18: A spokesperson with URMC wrote to let us know they updated their release to include quantified findings: “We added a line with specific findings from the study: ‘In the clinical trial, the new biomarker test was positive in 97.6 percent of patients with a traumatic intracranial injury on head CT scan, while the probability that a patient with a negative test result had a normal head CT scan was 99.6 percent.’ Here is the link to the updated release.”
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Quite the opener: “Something as simple as a dietary supplement could reduce disruptive, even abusive behavior, according to newly released research by a team led by a UMass Lowell criminal justice professor.”
But along with not getting any information about the study results, we’re also not told how many children were in the study, how aggressive their behavior was before and after the study, nor what the dosing was.
We are, however, told that “Giving children omega-3 fatty acid supplements reduces disruptive behavior, which in turn had a positive effect on their parents, making them less likely to argue with each other and engage in other verbal abuse.”
That’s a pill we won’t be swallowing without some numbers to wash it down.
Do you write news releases? And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
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.
Christine Gillette
July 30, 2018 at 12:11 pmThe actual post of the UMass Lowell press release cited here includes a link to the journal article, which includes full data from the research. The release in your article is from a secondary website that posts research news and also includes the link to the journal article and data in a sidebar on the same page, which is their formatting style. Your comments do not allow posting of the link to the release or research, but anyone interested in either should feel free to reach out and I will provide it to you.
Joy Victory
July 30, 2018 at 2:39 pmHi Christine–thanks for sending in your comment. I also replied to your email you sent separately.
We weren’t referring to links to studies.
Instead, we expect news release writers to include at least a sentence or two about the key findings–quantified–within the body of the news release.
As in, by how much did the intervention reduce aggression — i.e., what was the numerical decrease in the Conflicts Tactic Scale? — compared to the control group.
For example, and I’m making up the number here, the news release could have something like this: “The intervention group experienced a 3-point drop on the Conflicts Tactic Scale compared to the control group.” This helps journalists understand how impactful the research was and how that impact was measured.
In this case, it also doesn’t appear that the study abstract includes any quantified findings. All I see here is: “Caregivers of children in the omega‐3 group reported long‐term reductions in psychological aggression in a group × time interaction.”
Here’s a recent high-scoring news release that did a fantastic job on this point:
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/news-release-review/exemplary-explanation-of-study-comparing-diabetic-macular-edema-treatments/
Emily Boynton
August 1, 2018 at 8:23 amThank you for highlighting the lack of data in our recent press release, “Study supports blood test to help diagnose brain injury.” We added a line with specific findings from the study: “In the clinical trial, the new biomarker test was positive in 97.6 percent of patients with a traumatic intracranial injury on head CT scan, while the probability that a patient with a negative test result had a normal head CT scan was 99.6 percent.” Here is the link to the updated release: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/5394/study-supports-blood-test-to-help-diagnose-brain-injury.aspx.
Joy Victory
August 1, 2018 at 9:25 amThank you! I’ve added an “update” note to the post itself, too.
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