Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer. If caught early, it is highly treatable. If found in advanced stages, the 5 year survival drops significantly. This story reports on the results of a small pilot study showing a benefit in treating advanced stage melanoma using a new class of drug. This short story does a great job of informing the reader while using a minimum of words (only 343).
The story adequately represents the availability and novelty of the new drug. The story accurately describes the strength of the available evidence by correctly describing the current study as "small" and "preliminary."
The story does a good job of quantifying the benefits of treatment in absolute terms by providing the actual number of months with no new lesions for both the new drug group and the standard treatment group.
Finally, the story does mention that "there are very few drugs available for people with advanced melanoma." However, the story could have elaborated on the available alternatives and how this new drug may fit in with the existing options.
The story does not mention costs, but it is understandable that pricing may not be available with a drug so early in development.
The story does a good job of quantifying the benefits of treatment in absolute terms by providing the actual number of months with no new lesions for both the new drug group and the standard treatment group.
The story mentions that potential harms of the drug include a drop in white blood cells, back pain and fatigue.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the study as "small" and "preliminary."
The story does not overstate the seriousness or prevalence of melanoma.
The story quotes one independent expert in addition to a representative of the company.
The story does mention that "there are very few drugs available for people with advanced melanoma." However, the story could have elaborated on the available alternatives and how this new drug may fit in with the existing options.
The story clearly states that the drug is in very early stages of development and has not yet been submitted for approval.
The story clearly states that the drug is new.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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