This story on an experimental desensitization treatment for peanut allergies oversells the promise of the research and the importance of the studies.
As the ratings below show, the story is poorly sourced and buries a key warning about the treatment.
But its main problem is that the reporter lets the "good news" [that studies suggest a new regimen may be effective against a serious condition] linger far too long before getting to the "bad news" [the studies are unpublished, preliminary, small, brief and inconclusive].
The lede gets in trouble early when it says the treatment "raises the possibility of a cure for this potentially life-threatening condition." In the next paragraph it conveys a lead researcher’s assertion that a treatment "may be developed in two or three years."
Only later come the reminders that these are small pilot studies.
This is a common pattern in news reporting: Run with the promise, and let the caveats catch up by the end of the story. The result is that interested readers–in this case, parents of kids with peanut allergies–have their hopes raised and dashed within 350 words.
Discussing costs isn’t particulary relevant with this approach and at this early stage of research.
The report includes sufficient detail about the studies’ methodology and outcomes to help readers [eventually] understand the small numbers of children involved and the basic findings.
The story states that "most" of the 33 patients in the first test appeared to have improved resistance to peanut allergens, that 5 could tolerate peanuts without reaction, and that 4 had to withdraw because they could not tolerate the treatment.
The story reports that the second test split the 18 subjects into treatment and placebo groups, and described approximate outcomes for each group.
In the last line, the story warns that the children in the studies, who were allergic to peanuts, were under close medical supervision and that "parents should not try the approach at home."
This is a satisfactory warning about potential harms. But it should have appeared earlier.
The author should also have mentioned whether those in the study who "did not tolerate" the exposure treatment needed epinephrine or some other intervention to quell the allergic reaction.
The news story is based on two presentations of very early studies with small numbers of patients at a medical conference. This is a very low quality of evidence.
The report should have made plain from the top that the studies have not been published or peer-reviewed, and that the study groups were very small.
It is not until paragraph 6 of a 10-paragraph story that we learn the study is a "pilot" and that the number of subjects in the two studies is just 33 and 18.
It is not until paragraph 8 that we learn "[f]ar more study is needed. . . ."
Given the story’s early discussion of a "cure" and a treatment within 2-3 years, the discussion of the quality of the evidence wasn’t strong enough nor early enough in the story.
No disease-mongering about the seriousness or incidence of these food allergies.
The only source quoted is Dr. Wesley Burks of Duke University Medical Center, one of the researchers who presented work at the meeting.
The reporter fails to disclose that Burks has financial relationships with a number of drug, food and device companies with an interest in allergies.
The reporter should have interviewed at least one additional source with deep knowledge of peanut allergies and no connection to the research.
The article states, correctly, that there are no approved treatments for food allergies.
The story makes clear that this experimental treatment for peanut allergy is in the early stages of human research, and not available.
Ideally it would have made this plain earlier in the story.
The report explains that previous British studies of similar treatments have shown similar results. It also states that a U.S. based consortium is conducting studies as well.
The reader would not come away believing the treatment being tested is unique.
The New York Times article states, "'[N]early half of the 150 deaths attributed to food allergies in the United States each year are caused by peanut allergies,’ according to Duke University."
A Duke University press release includes this same sentence, with the exception of the words "in the United States."
This is a minor matter, hardly evidence that the NYT reporter is rewriting a handout. But it’s unsettling nonetheless.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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