This piece on a new imaging technique to detect noncalcified arterial plaques is described as a Sun-Sentinel "staff report." In fact it is a word-for-word replication of a press release issued by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, which employs the lead researchers.
It’s difficult to imagine why an editor would try to pass off a press release as a "staff report." Newsroom budgets are tight. But news services usually provide perfectly adequate news reports. Failing that, a house ad for the newspaper or a public service accouncement could have been published instead. Failing even that, the press release could have been described as a press release.
To label an unedited handout as a staff report is to abuse whatever trust the public has for the Sun-Sentinel.
The ratings above for the press release, by the way, represent a worthwhile exercise. How does an unedited press release measure up to HealthNewsReview.org criteria? Poorly–but it turns out no worse than previous Sun-Sentinel stories. Of the three articles previously reviewed, two earned only two stars as well.
The news release does not report a price for the imaging technique.
The press release fails to quantify the benefit of using this technique for diagnosis of noncalcified plaques.
The press release fails to account for the possiblity of false positives or false negatives, or other potential harms of using the diagnostic technique.
The study featured in the press release analyzed the efficacy of new imaging techniques to detect noncalcified arterial plaques. These findings were not connected to patient outcomes.
The press release failed to mention this limitation. And it did not give any caveats about drawing conclusions from a very small pilot study.
The news release does not exaggerate the frequency or severity of undiagnosed noncalcified plaque.
The only source is the press release itself, which is issued by the hospital that employs the researchers involved. No other sources were consulted for this press release.
The press release describes the two treatments currently used to detect arterial plaques and heart disease risk–a stress test and angiography.
The news release says nothing about availability of the experimental procedure.
The press release correctly describes the pairing of voxel analysis and multi-detector computed tomography angiography as novel.
The article is a verbatim copy of a press release available via Eureka Alert, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
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.