NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Statins and Dementia

Rating

4 Star

Statins and Dementia

Our Review Summary

This evening news TV broadcast focuses on a study about whether statin drugs reduce the risk of dementia. It essentially does a good job of responsibly conveying the key findings and providing a very clear take-home message to viewers. These are the big matters a story needs to get right. 

The piece could have been improved with a bit more detail about the study findings themselves (including a mention of absolute risk) and information about side effects and costs. 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The segment does not indicate how much statins cost. They range from pennies to nearly $4 per pill. 

Given the anchor’s and reporter’s questions about whether people should start taking statins now as a prophylactic despite conflicting research, the price should have been mentioned. 

 

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The correspondent reports that study subjects taking statins "were about half as likely" to develop dementia or early warning signs. On-screen, a graphic shows this number more precisely, 52 percent.  But that’s a relative risk number, which can be less helpful to understanding. 

The report should have stated what the absolute risk of dementia was in the statin group and the non-statin group. According to the study abstract, the risks of developing dementia or early signs within five years appeared to be about 8 percent for the non-statin group and about 3.5 percent for the statin group.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The study should have mentioned whether the studied group that took statins showed any side effects compared to the group not taking the statins.

The story is implictly about the potential benefits of long-term, prophylactic use of statins for people at high risk for dementia and some vascular diseases. The possiblity of side effects in this group should have been mentioned. 

The journal’s press release says "the most common side effects of statins are headaches, nausea, fever and muscle pain."

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The study the story is built around is a carefully done cohort study published in a major journal. The article reports the number of people enrolled in the study, their age, the study’s duration and the basic outcome.

This is sufficient evidence upon which to base a story. The segment should have named the journal the study appeared in. It also should have explained that the subjects were at high risk for dementia in part due to vascular disease.  

The use of an on-screen graphic to report the numbers is an excellent practice for TV journalism. 

The reporter does a responsible job at the end of the segment by indicating that these results are not conclusive and should not be acted upon. 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The segment does nothing to exaggerate the risk or consequences of Alzheimer’s disease.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The reporter talks to one of the researchers on the study, and an expert with no relationship to the study.

This is adequate sourcing. A third source would have improved the story. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The segment does an excellent job of reporting on the established methods for reducing risk of dementia or Alzheimer’s: physical and mental activity, a good diet and general heart-healthy behaviors. And it does a good job warning people away from the conclusion that based on this study they should take statins to reduce dementia risk.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

The availability of statins is not in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The segment does a good job explaining that the benefits of statins on cognitive function have been studied previously, with conflicting results.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

There were two press releases issues with this study, one by the journal and one by the University of Michigan.

The segment does not draw excessively on either.

Total Score: 6 of 9 Satisfactory

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.