While this was an informative story about the relative average weight loss attained with the use of three different weight loss medications, it neglected some important asepcts of the story needed for readers to understand the complete picture. The results from the studies need to be appreciated in the context of being best case scenarios, i.e. it included only a narrow range of subjects and then utilized the resources they could leverage to best enable them to lose weight. In the real life setting, the average weight loss attained is likely to be somewhat less and occurence of side effects may be higher. Adding to this that weight regain commonly occurs when the medications are stopped, it means that the health claims made for the weight loss observed in the studies is more tenuous. The costs of these drugs were not mentioned; they are major barriers to treatment and should have been discussed in detail.
Providing this framework will better enable readers to appreciate a realistic role for medications in the quest for healthy weight.
There was no presentation of comparative costs for the three medications mentioned in the story.
The benefits of treatment in terms of average weight loss were well presented. The benefits in terms of altered risk of heart disease and diabetes were not quantified. The story should have discussed the evidence (or lack thereof) that these medications can improve health in the long-term. The story should have discussed weight regain issues and failure rates.
The story did mention the more commonly documented side effects or increased risks that have been associated with the use of the various medications discussed.
While the story discussed the average weight loss observed, it did not provide estimates for the percentage of individuals taking the medication who did not report weight loss.
The average weight loss attained with the use of the three medications was discussed. Several times the story linked weight loss from the drugs with reduction in the risk of heart disease and diabetes. But the story never explained how large was the potential heart/diabetes risk reduction. And, on the main point of weight reduction, the story never explained whether the evidence is clear that these drugs benefit health in the long term. The story also failed to provide a context for the weight loss maintenance; this is important because once people are no longer taking the medication, they are apt to regain the weight.
This article was very good in its abscence of disease mongering content.
The story appears to have made use of several scientific papers, editorials and conversations with weight loss experts that were and were not associated with the research reported on.
Although the story was about three different medications used for weight loss, the story did not address the other treatment options that are available for obese individuals. Lifestyle treatments that include behavioral, dietary, and exercise interventions should have been mentioned as an alternate treatment and evidence should have been presented about the evidence of health effects with those alternatives. There is stronger evidence of health benefits from many lifestyle interventions than for drug therapy.
The story was very clear about the availability of the three medications it discussed.
The story was a basic presentation of some summary data on three weight loss medications.
Because the story turned to a source who was not tied to the study, it is safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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