NIH recap on ‘brain disease test’: strong on study results, but lacks clarity on patient benefits

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The release says the test “correctly excluded all the 31 controls and diagnosed both Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies with 93 percent accuracy.” The author also noted the number of people tested.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The release gives specific information on the scope of the study, including that researchers “tested 60 cerebral spinal fluid samples, including 12 from people with Parkinson’s disease, 17 from people with dementia with Lewy bodies, and 31 controls, including 16 of whom had Alzheimer’s disease.”

However, it doesn’t mention some limitations, such as very small number of patient volunteers and the researchers’ observations that factors such as sample volume and temperature “strongly influenced the performance of the assay.”  The researchers say further testing will be necessary to understand some of the specific detection abilities of the test, including when they’re used in clinical settings.

If the test is to be used in clinical trials, standardization across sites will have to be assured — both where samples are collected and where the assay is done.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There’s no evidence of disease-mongering. The release says Parkinson’s disease affects “up to 1 million people in the United States, with 60,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Lewy body dementia affects an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States, according to the Lewy Body Dementia Association.”

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The news release says “test results were available within two days, compared to related assays that require up to 13 days.”

However, it doesn’t say how the faster test compares in terms of accuracy. The study says early detection is helpful in part because “the accuracy of diagnoses based on other clinical indices is poorest in the earlier phases of disease.”

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The release does a good job here, stating:

Early and accurate diagnoses of these brain disorders is essential for developing treatments and identifying patients eligible for clinical trials. The diseases typically progress for years before symptoms appear, and once they do, distinguishing one disease from another can be difficult.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

There’s no unjustifiable language.