Gary Schwitzer is the founder and publisher of HealthNewsReview. He has covered health care news almost exclusively since 1973. Here is his online bio. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
The Reuters headline blared, “One in three South Korean COVID-19 patients improve with remdesivir.” The first sentence of the story repeated that number: “One in three South Korean patients seriously ill with COVID-19 showed an improvement in their condition after being given Gilead Sciences Inc’s antiviral remdesivir, health authorities said.”
One in three. Was that 1,000 out of 3,000? 100 out of 300?
No. It was 9 out of 27. Nine who “showed an improvement in their condition.” An unspecified degree of improvement. What about the other 18 patients?
15 showed no change and three worsened.
Besides the small numbers, there are other reasons to question the international newsworthiness of the vaguely described improvements for the 9 patients.
The story acknowledged some of these:
“More research was needed to determine if the improvement was attributable to the drug or other factors such as patients’ immunity and other therapies”
“Gilead…cautioned that rigorous clinical trials were needed to confirm the benefit.”
“The result had yet to be compared with a control group and more analysis was needed to conclude remdesivir’s benefit.”
It’s also important to note that the news came from a briefing – not from a peer-reviewed or published journal article. And the group of patients were treated at different hospitals. We can’t know whether the metrics – the assessments of “improvement” – were the same across these different hospitals.
Reuters is an international news agency. The story was picked up by The New York Times, The Washington Post, US News & World Report and Yahoo News.
My advice: Slow down. Wait for details. There was no reason to rush this news from South Korea.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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