This news article does a solid job of explaining the findings of a complex study.
The New England Journal of Medicine report compares the findings of published studies of antidepressants to the whole research record on the drugs, which includes unpublished studies. Since most of the unpublished studies had negative outcomes, the findings suggest that doctors and patients are often making treatment decisions based on unjustified positive impressions of the drugs’ effectiveness.
A reporter may be tempted to center the news article on the findings about antidepressants’ effectiveness (which some other news articles on this study did).
But this news story explores the consequences of incomplete reporting of clinical trial results generally. This helps the study shed light on a larger issue–the potential impact of selective publication on clinical practice.
Overall – a nice job of reporting on a highly technical study.
The article does not report the costs of the antidepressant medications, which range from very inexpensive in generic forms to expensive branded drugs. However, the story is really about medical journal publication bias and so it is understandable that the story didn’t discuss the drugs’ costs.
The news article does a sufficient job of citing facts–including number and percentage of studies showing positive results in published research compared to those showing positive results in all research conducted–to support the basic findings.
It would have been useful to provide data that shows the magnitude of the publication bias in clinical outcome findings–for instance the number of patients improved with treatment in the published studies vs. the number improved in unpublished studies.
The article addresses two types of potential harm implied by the findings:
The article is based on a published report appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study itself was a careful analysis of the content and conclusions of published and unpublished studies, including clinical trials.
There is no discussion of prevalence/impact of depression, so this criterion is not applicable in this case.
The article does a good job of citing a wide variety of sources, and a high number for a news article of this length (seven).
Sources include the lead author; a specialist with a major medical school; another academic observer; and spokesmen for two drug companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory agency involved, the FDA.
The variety and number of sources used helps create useful context for this complex story.
The article does not explore specific alternatives to the drugs studied. Alternatives such as psychotherapy were not discussed and should have at least been mentioned.
The antidepressant drugs that are the subject of the studies are widely available.
Since the story discusses 74 trials on 12 different drugs, it’s clear that these drugs are not new.
There is no evidence the news report draws heavily on the press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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