Michael Joyce is a writer-producer with HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Using cancer as clickbait is ubiquitous and worrisome.
It’s one thing to highlight studies that represent genuine progress, and quite another to write hopeful headlines about studies that are clearly not ready for prime time. Such is the case with 4 of the stories we feature below.
It may seem like too widespread a problem to have an impact on, but there is a way to make a difference. If you see a cancer story where you know there’s a disconnect between a hopeful headline and a scant study, make your voice heard — email the author or editor and tweet them your disapproval.
Let news organizations know that you want more substance, and less pablum.
It’s precisely why we regularly take a look back at the news stories and releases we’ve systematically reviewed to see if the headlines and the content are in synch. This is what we found when we looked back over the past month.
Headline: Milk protein shown to alleviate chemotherapy side effects
Study: A very preliminary study of 12 cancer patients investigating whether taking lactoferrin supplements improved their sense of taste and smell.
Our review: The news release provides no supportive data, never mentions how small the study is, and doesn’t explain the basic design or multiple limitations of the study — including the lack of a control group.
Our reviewers said: “To then write a headline broadly claiming alleviation of chemotherapy side effects and state the ‘findings could bring relief to millions of patients undergoing cancer treatment’ is a textbook example of overreaching and unjustified hype with significant potential for misleading — not ‘bringing relief to’ — millions.”
Headline:Testosterone replacement therapy may slow the progression of COPD
Study: An observational study of middle aged and older men, their consumption of testosterone replacement therapy, and how it impacted hospitalizations for respiratory problems.
Our review: “If testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) slows the progression of COPD in men by producing a positive lung function, this could indeed be a public health advance.
Observational studies, however, are problematic in that the two cohorts of men observed (those who take TRT and those who don’t) may be different in other fundamental ways … Studies like these allow us to draw conclusions, but only that there is an association — not that TRT caused a reduction in COPD.”
Headline: New blood test detects early stage pancreatic cancer
Study: A retrospective study designed to see how accurate a blood test is at picking up biomarkers in patients known to have Stage I or II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Our review: The headline is misleading because the results are very preliminary, and the blood test was given to those already known to have cancer. Our reviewers noted:
“For many readers the headline might suggest there’s a new screening test currently available that can detect this very lethal cancer in anyone, when that’s clearly not the case.”
Headline: Merck KGaA, Pfizer’s immuno-drug shown to alleviate kidney cancer
Study: No study here; rather a company announcement of an ongoing trial of a combination therapy reportedly showing longer progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
PFS is a surrogate for outcomes that patients truly care about such as overall survival and quality of life — and does not necessarily indicate that the kidney cancer was “alleviated.”
Our review: “The [Reuter’s] story takes the company’s word for the announced benefit without evaluating the claims and fails to address cost or side effects in any way … This story is, essentially, a news release. That does a disservice to the story’s readers and to the newsroom it came from.”
Headline: Study: Medical marijuana relieves range of symptoms with no serious side effects
Study: This US News story drew largely from a news release about two studies purporting to show sweeping health benefits of marijuana, based on user-reported data from the Releaf phone app.
Our review: “There was no critical examination of the underlying evidence, and this story is basically providing free marketing for all sorts of things the authors of the study have financial stakes in.”
Headline: Doctors use bacteria as weapon against cancer
Study: A safety trial of 24 patients designed to establish the safety (not the efficacy) of injecting a weakened form of bacterium into tumors.
Our review: “In this story, the message that the bacterium ”appears to target malignant cells and could provide a new means of fighting cancer’ is overly optimistic, given that this is a study that was designed to establish a safe dosage level, not show whether there’s a meaningful clinical benefit.”
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