The release focuses on two papers that discuss early research into developing a technique for identifying people who will develop neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. The papers were published in the December issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
Specifically, the papers evaluated “tracer” molecules that might be useful for identifying “tau tangles” — proteins in the brain that occur in patients with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.
The release does a good job of describing the research, but does not address costs, potential harms, or the potential accuracy of diagnostic tests that might be developed based on these tracer molecules. Also, we think the headline jumps the gun in calling this a “promising diagnostic tool.”
New diagnostic tools that allow medical practitioners to track the development of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia may have significant effects on future research into treatment. However, news releases should caution that there’s a big leap from identifying particular tracers to a developing a useful diagnostic tool.
Cost isn’t discussed.
The benefit here would be the accurate diagnosis of tau protein tangles in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. There is no quantification of findings in this regard. Instead, the release uses general language, such as the statement that one of the studies “generated good and reproducible results.”
Also, the news release could have been clearer that no diagnostic tool has been developed, as the few people tested with heavy tau tangle loads already were known to have Alzheimer’s.
Harms aren’t discussed. Are there any risks associated with injecting these molecular markers into a study participant or patient? Even if there aren’t, that in itself is worth addressing. The release also doesn’t address two other potential harms (which are common to most, if not all, diagnostics): the failure to identify someone who has Alzheimer’s and the “false positive” misdiagnosis of people who do not have Alzheimer’s. This is the difference between “sensitivity” and “specificity.” Missing someone who has Alzheimer’s is problematic. And being told that one has a disease that one does not actually have can also have ramifications for future healthcare, with consequences both physical and financial.
The release does a good job of describing the work and the design of the studies covered by the two journal articles. The release also provides background context for the studies, which is useful.
The release notes the funding source for the research and addresses conflicts of interest.
The release accurately notes that there is no definitive diagnostic tool for Alzheimer’s disease other than an autopsy of the brain. It also refers to a “currently used” tau tracer.
We wish it had been clearer that the research being described is not the only work being done in this area. For example, this 2015 paper in the journal Alzheimer’s and Dementia describes a number of innovative approaches being explored in this field.
The release does not make clear that this work is still far removed from widespread clinical application.
The background and context provided in the release do a good job of making clear what sets the work apart.
For the most part, the release does not cross the line in its use of language. However, we think it’s premature to call this a “promising diagnostic tool,” as the headline does.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
We wrote only about efforts that label themselves as “fact-checking” projects. You’ll see that if you read the piece.
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.
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