This story describes the development of "artificial pancreas" technology. Despite a lack of data on safety or efficacy, the story unwisely presumes eventual clinical use and its potential to significantly improve the lives of kids with Type 1 diabetes.
The report would have been stronger if it had followed a few best practices:
There is nothing wrong with reporting about early research into treatments, especially for a serious disease affecting children. But the story needs to maintain a skeptical distance, and do diligent reporting, to ensure readers get a realistic view of the technology and its promise.
While the artificial pancreas technology is still in prototype, two elements of it–the insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor–are currently used. As a matter of course, the costs of this technology should be cited.
We are not given a clear sense of how many people have been tested on this technology, but if the story can confidently state that "Experts say the technology will revolutionize treatment of type 1 diabetes and may help people with advanced type 2" then it should be able to cite some data at this point.
The story does not explore the possible risks of the developing technology.
The story does not cite any evidence of safety or efficacy of the developing technology.
The story quotes four medical sources, one of whom is directly linked to a device maker.
But the report fails to note whether any of the other sources, including the central figure, has a financial conflict of interest. A story about a developing technology with potentially significant economic payoff should clarify the status of each source.
The story makes clear that the current treatment regimen, even with the two existing hardware devices, is demanding and difficult.
It explains that diet is important to controlling Type 1 diabetes.
The story makes clear that the "artificial pancreas" technology is not available and is likely to be years away from implementation.
The story does an excellent job of distinguishing between the existing hardware elements of the "closed-loop" system and the software currently under development.
There isn’t any evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news 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.
You might also like