This story covered a randomized clinical trial which was stopped because of excess deaths seen in a group of high risk diabetics receiving more intensive blood sugar management as compared to a group of high risk diabetics whose blood sugar was not as tightly managed. Several experts interviewed for the story commented that this outcome was unexpected.
An important message for readers is that the importance of a clinical endpoint (such as death, in this case) is more meaningful than an intermediary or surrogate endpoint (such as blood sugar level or glycosylated hemoglobin). It’s also a good example of the importance of randomized clinical trials.
The story provided:
There was no cost information provided; it is both relevant and available. The medications used to more tightly control sugar levels are expensive.
The story differentiated the two groups as having been treated to have blood sugar levels like ‘the average person with diabetes’ and ‘closer to those of someone without diabetes.’ We would wish for more specific information about what those blood sugar levels were.
The point of the story was not that blood sugar levels ought not be treated, but rather what the goal ought to be in order to maximize the benefit of treatment.
This story was about the new finding that more intensive management of sugar levels in high risk patients increases mortality risk. Differences in death rates were given in absolute terms.
The story did a good job of providing sufficient detail to help readers understand the magnitude of the difference in deaths between the two groups. Although the story didn’t specify that this was a randomized clnical trial – and why that’s important – it can be inferred from the otherwise detailed description of how the study was done.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Comments from interviews with several individuals knowledgeable about the trial (i.e. cardiologist, people at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute) were included in this story.
While the story stated that the blood sugar levels of those in the group attempting more intensive management were lower than those of typical patients, the story did not provide context for readers to know how their treatment actually would compare to those in the study.
The story stated that the medications used in this study where those that are commonly used for lowering blood sugar.
The story is about the results from a newly released study.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
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