This story gave details about an asthma medication that has now received FDA approval for use in a new population, children aged 4-11 years of age. But the story didn’t:
The story did not provide a cost estimate for this use of this medication.
Though mentioning that this medication was significantly better than placebo, the story did not provide any details about how much better the treatment was.
While the story provided a list of the harms that have been associated with the use of this medication, it does not mention the specific concerns for the use of this product in the younger age group for which it has just been approved. People who use this medication may be more susceptible to infections; common childhood diseases such as chickenpox or measles can be more serious.
Although mentioning a small study in which the featured product was said to provide ‘significantly more’ symptom relief than a placebo , the story actually did not provide any information about the magnitude of the benefit.
The story did provide quite of bit of background about asthma – estimate of its prevalence, its toll on work and school attendance, and that it can, in fact, be a life threatening condition.
The story interviewed two PR people but no pediatric lung specialists to give some insight into the importance of this change.
The story did provide information about how this product and its deliver system differed from other treatments currently on the market.
The story provided quite a complete explanation about the availability of this medication – that it had been approved 2 years ago for use and that it has recently been approved for use by young children.
The story was clear that the medication had received approval for a new population. That said, how much of an impact will it have to decrease the age group for whom the medication is appropriate from 6 down to 4?
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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