This is a very good story reporting on the results from a recent trial examining the impact of rimonabant, a cannibinoid receptor inhibitor, on obesity and cardioavscular disease. The story did a good job reporting on both the benefits of the drug in improving weight and cholesterol as well as the harms of increased numbers of people reporting anxiety and depression. The story included several quotes from physicians such as the drug is "unlikely ever to be approved" or that it was "nothing but bad news and "I think we need to get back to what really works – exercise and diet." The story was well written and would enable a reader to appreciate the complexity of assessing the impact of a medication. It was clear, balanced and succinct – the rimonabant portion of the story running less than 600 words.
The story did not mention the costs for this medication.
The story provided information about the magnitude of benefit derived from the use of this drug.
The story provided clear information about the harms (anxiety, depression and insomnia) associated with the medication studied.
The story did a fairly complete job presenting the results of the study it was reporting on. It mentioned that there was recent buzz generated from a presentation at a meeting but that the study itself had been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Differing views from a number of clinicians on how the outcomes from the study should/would be interpreted were included in this story.
The story included a quote from a cardiologist, "I think we need to get back to what really works – exercise and diet." There was no other mention of treatments besides the highlighted class of medications (cannabinoid receptor inhibitors). We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story was clear that rimonabant is available in Europe (and therefore available online) but has not been approved for use in the US.
The story accurately conveyed the status of this medication – i.e. it is available in Europe but has not been approved by the FDA.
Did not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.