Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is a condition in which the body does not produce enough growth hormone, causing short stature among other symptoms. GHD can be successfully treated with growth hormone replacement therapy in childhood. Growth hormone injections are notorious for misuse by athletes because of its effects on muscle mass and it is essential that its use be limited to true deficiencies with an identifiable cause.
This story provides a nice tale of a girl who is helped by growth hormone therapy but does not provide much for the reader in the way of meaningful content. It adequately describes the novelty and availability of the treatment, quotes multiple sources and does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of growth disorders, however the story could have done a better job of describing what distinguishes these disorders from normal short stature.
The story could have been improved by quantifying the benefits of treatment, describing the evidence to support its use, elaborating on the alternative treatment options, and mentioning the costs of treatment, which are significant. Finally, the story should have described the harms and side effects of treatment, of which there are many.
The story does not mention the cost of the treatment.
The story does not quantify the benefits of growth hormone therapy and relies too heavily on the use of anecdote to describe the benefits.
The story does not mention any harms of the growth hormone treatment.
The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence to support hormone replacement therapy.
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of growth disorders. The story could have done a better job of describing what distinguishes these disorders from normal short stature.
The story quotes multiple experts.
The story does not mention any alternative treatments to growth hormone.
Clearly growth hormone is available.
Clearly growth hormone treatment is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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