Read Original Story

Certain diabetes drugs found to double bone fracture risk in women


4 Star

Certain diabetes drugs found to double bone fracture risk in women

Our Review Summary

This brief piece (only 320 words) tried to report on a longer-term outcome, increased fracture risk, seen with two common medications that are used for the treatment of diabetes.  It failed to provide quantitative information about the absolute fracture risk for the individuals involved and did not include information about treatment options.  And while the study raises questions about the long-term use of the drugs reported on, the story did not provide the reader with any sense of evidence based alternatives.

Obviously for women using these drugs the increased fracture risk is alarming.  So use of absolute risks and placing this risk in the context of the potential benefit of the medication and the possible use of other lower risk medications would have provided more helpful information for the public.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The cost for the use of these medications is not discussed but is also not exactly relevant to the story, which is presenting evidence indicating that their use may not be desirable.

However – it might have been interesting to note that among the medications taken orally to treat diabetes, these 2 drugs are more expensive than most. 

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

Not Satisfactory

The story reported on the increased fracture risk that appears to be associated with two drugs used for the treatment of diabetes.  The fact that they are commonly used medications at least suggests that there is a reason these medicines are being used.  While it is true that there may be a trade-off to be made between what these medications do and the increase in fracture risk, the story did not provide any narrative about utility of these medications.

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

Not Satisfactory

This story indicates that the increase in fracture rate that may be associated with the use of these medications ‘could have substantial effect’. But because the story doesn’t indicate what the absolute fracture risk is, a reader has no way of assessing what ‘doubling the fracture risk’  actually means in term of the likelihood a woman will break a bone.

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


The story explains that the study it was reporting on combined the results from a number of studies for its analysis.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


There is no overt disease mongering about diabetes or about fractures.

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


Minimal input from a second source – that coming from an editorial writer who was not involved in the study reported on. The piece might have been improved by including insight from a diabetes expert about what options are available for individuals with diabetes who might be concerned about fracture risk. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story did not provide any insight for readers about what options might exist for individuals with diabetes, who are using either of these medications and are concerned about fracture risk.  Are there other medications that might be used?  Are there lifestyle changes that might lessen the need for the medications reported on?

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


The story indicates that the two medications it mentioned are currently in use for the treatment of diabetes.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story appropriately put the new study in context, stating that "Researchers had known there was an increased risk of fractures associated with the drugs, but not the magnitude of the risk."

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

Not Applicable

We can’t tell the extent to which the story relied on a news release.  The only experts mentioned were the author and the editorial writer. 

Total Score: 5 of 8 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.