Those who communicate research results about devastating diseases such as Alzheimer’s should be prepared to present data to help readers assess the scope of the advances that are announced. This news release failed to deliver any such data. Worse, it catapulted beyond Alzheimer’s to say that the blood test being researched had shown promise in Parkinson’s, MS and breast cancer – without anything to back that up.
We have been down this road so many times in the past – with news releases or news stories claiming an imminent test for Alzheimer’s disease. We – and we think the general public – become numb to the news. And that is unfortunate.
Our longstanding policy is that if it’s not too early to use such phrases as “nearing development of a blood test” or “closing in on a blood test” – as this story does – then it’s not to early to give at least a ballpark estimate of what this supposedly imminent test would cost. There is no discussion of cost in this story,
No details are given about how the test has performed. Nothing about sensitivity or specificity. If the test is “nearing development,” the researcher should be able to provide positive and negative predictive values – the best measures to judge the performance of such a test. How many people who test positive really have the disease, and how many who test negative don’t?
Then, in this data-free zone in which this news release resides, it goes even further beyond Alzheimer’s to say that “the blood test has also shown promise in detecting other diseases, including Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and breast cancer.” Again, without a shred of evidence provided.
Without discussing sensitivity or specificity, the news release gives no picture of the potential for false positives or false negatives – always potential harms with any test.
The news release provides no idea of the research results that lead to statements that the test is “close” or “nearing development.”
There is no disease mongering of Alzheimer’s disease in the release.
Two funding sources for the research are disclosed.
If you simply looked on our website, searching for past news about supposedly imminent Alzheimer’s tests, you would get dizzy going down the trail of past promises. Much less if you did a literature search.
This story provides no context about other work in the field, while providing no information about how the performance of this test sets its apart from others.
What does “closing in on a blood test” mean?
What does “nearing development of a blood test” mean?
Does it mean a month? A year? A decade?
And on what basis are these crystal ball predictions made?
No information is provided to establish the novelty of this particular research approach, compared with myriad other research studies pursuing possible tests for Alzheimer’s.
We find it unacceptable to drop in this completely-unsupported-by-any-evidence line in the middle of the news release:
“The blood test developed by Dr. Nagele has also shown promise in detecting other diseases, including Parkinsons’s, multiple sclerosis and breast cancer.”
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.
Jerry Carey
October 26, 2015 at 8:33 amI began following your site a couple of months ago and appreciate your views on this release. Your comments will help to improve my reporting of research results in the future (full disclosure: I am a media/PR rep for Rowan University).
In fairness, though, I believe the AOA’s release was intended to announce that Dr. Nagele was presenting some interim results on the progress his team was making. Although, as you note, there were no specific results mentioned, he has published extensively, including initial results as early as 2011 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023112) and in subsequent articles. The interim results referred to in the current release were also included in a poster presentation at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, this past summer, in Washington.
I also want to mention that his most recent research results toward the development of this test as a way to diagnose and stage Parkinson’s disease and differentiate it from other diseases were reported at the end of September in a 398-subject study published in Immunology Letters (http://bit.ly/1ORdZTY) and promoted by Rowan University in a news release (http://bit.ly/1R8L2k8).
Again, thanks very much for your feedback and for the excellent work you do with Health News Reviews.
Gary Schwitzer
October 26, 2015 at 9:26 amJerry,
Thanks for your note and for your open-minded approach to our critique.
Regardless of the intent of the AOA news release, it clearly didn’t deliver the information that you just provided in a brief email comment.
Thanks for your kind comments about our project.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
Paul Swiergosz
October 26, 2015 at 9:14 amGood catch. Hope you don’t mind if we share your article/conclusions. This makes a great mini-case study in how “not to” make news – http://wp.me/p4Rrr3-qq
Gary Schwitzer
October 26, 2015 at 9:23 amPaul,
Thanks for your note, and, yes, please share.
We’re here to teach and to help. So if you can help spread the lessons, have at it.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
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