This news report does a solid job of describing study findings that show Alzheimer’s patients taking anti-psychotic drugs face an increased risk of death. It does several things particularly well:
The reader takeaway is clear: These drugs are dangerous and, if used, should be done so very carefully.
The story fails to mention the price of the anti-psychotic medications.
While this information is not crucial here, as a matter of course the cost of drug regimens under study should be mentioned. In this case, some of the anti-psychotic medications are expensive when taken long-term.
The story made a modest attempt to explain the possible benefits of the anti-psychotic drugs for Alzheimer’s patients – effectively painting a picture of doubt about their value. It states that the drugs may help control aggression and hallucinations "for a few months." And the story included the damning comment from the Alzheimer’s Association spokesman: "At some point, some people will be better off with no medication."
The story does a commendable job of describing the harms of the drugs in a variety of ways:
It also mentions other side effects linked to the drugs, including respiratory problems and stroke.
The news report does an excellent job of describing how the study was conducted and what outcomes it measured.
It would have been valuable to mention that, as a randomized controlled trial, this is a well-designed, high-quality study.
The story does not sensationalize the condition or its treatment.
The reporter interviewed three people: the study’s lead author, the head of an advocacy group with no connection to the study, and an independent psychiatrist.
The report properly discloses that the study’s author has received grants from companies that make Alzheimer’s drugs.
The article uses two quotes suggesting that taking no medication is an option.
It also usefully quotes a source who says environmental and behavioral treatments can be used to control some symptoms of dementia.
The first sentence states the drugs are "commonly used." Later on, the story says that up to 60 percent of patients with dementia in the US and UK are given the drugs for one to two years. [This latter detail, unfortunately, is unsourced.]
Since the treatment is common, novelty is not an issue.
The story does not appear to draw from the medical journal’s 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.
You might also like