This was an engaging story reporting on news from the American Heart Association meeting about a medication for use in preventing clot related complications in individuals with coronary artery disease (at the same time that a paper detailing the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine). It provided a very clear description of potential benefit and harms that could result from the use of this drug. In fact this was an outstanding example of using a summary to present the absolute effects (benefits and harms) and deserves special credit for this.
And the story was filed under deadline pressure – from the AHA meeting – and was done in less than 500 words.
The story didn’t give an estimate of the cost of this medication, but it did provide an estimated cost for the medication currently used in this situation. If the manufacturer intends to file for approval by the end of the year – as the story states – that is arguably only about 30 working days, so you can be assured they have a price in mind, and the story should have probed for it.
The story did a good job of presenting the benefit associated with the use of this treatment. In fact this was an outstanding example of using a summary to present the absolute effects (benefits and harms) and deserves special credit for this.
The story did a good job discussing the harms associated with the treatment.
Although the story did provide some information about the nature of the study on which it reported, it should have provided more detail about whether the study was a randomized clinical trial, any limitations on the people enrolled (men, women, age, other disease conditions, etc).
But the story did a very good job of presenting the outcomes of benefit and harms.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story would have been improved if it had provided more balance by including comment from someone removed from the study and perhaps more in touch with the perspective of the patient. It did include a commentary from one expert who was not involved in the study.
The story was clear that it was about a potential alternate treatment for prevention of clot related complications in individuals with coronary artery disease.
The story stated that the company planned to file for FDA approval by the end of the year.
The story was clear that this is a new medication.
Did not rely exclusively on the press release from the American Heart Association.
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