This segment, which follows the FDA’s announcement of an investigation into a possible link between the asthma/allergy drug Singulair and suicide, falls short of health journalism best practices in two important ways:
It’s worth pointing out that the segment ends with a useful reference to more information at abcnews.com. That article is much more thorough and balanced than this broadcast report.
The price of the medication is not mentioned.
The segment cites the number of people who participated in Singulair’s clinical trails. But it also states that there are "a handful" of reports of suicides and mood changes, and "hundreds" of complaints about serious side effects of Singulair on Internet message boards. This lack of specificity is not satisfactory.
The story is about the alleged harmful side effects of Singulair, so this criterion was clearly established.
Evidence is drawn from the FDA’s investigation announcement and the drugmaker’s statement in response. Both cite clinical trials and anecdotal reports.
The segment also includes an observation about discussions on the Internet. These discussion boards can be valuable or worthless sources of information. There’s not enough information here to know what value they bring to the story.
The story is built around a teenager’s tragic suicide, which followed use of the medication. This plays on viewers’ emotions, inviting them to assume, prematurely, that the drug and suicides are linked.
The story interviews the parents of the young suicide victim and one of the program’s "medical contributors." It also uses an observation about online discussion boards. This is not satisfactory sourcing for a story of this importance.
The segment fails to indicate that there are many other effective treatments available for asthma and allergies.
The segment makes clear that Singulair is widely used and available.
Because Singulair is so widely used, there is no claim made for its novelty.
The segment was triggered by the FDA action, not a company press 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.