Our Review Summary
Slow or non-healing fractures are painful, debilitating, and can cause deformity in the long term. They are a source of significant resource utilization from extended hospital or nursing home stays. At February’s Orthopaedic Research Society, researchers presented results from a new study showing that a form of parathyroid hormone, the drug teriparatide, marketed under the name Forteo, is benefitial in promoting the healing of non-healing fractures.
This story reports on the results of that study. The story is careful to describe the indication for the drug as being slow-healing fractures, which represents a small percentage of the overall number of fractures.
The story describes the cost of the drug, which is quite high. However, the story should not have spent so much time describing the potential for the drug to prevent nursing home days without providing evidence to that effect.
The story provides some but not all of the necessary information on the evidence to support the use of this drug. The story mentions that the current study followed 145 patients with unhealed bone fractures taking Forteo but does not mention that there was no control group to compare the results to. Furthermore, the study has not yet been published and the full results have no been reviewed by other experts. These are important caveats that the story should have mentioned when describing the strength of the evidence.
It’s good that the story quantified the percentage of patients who had significant improvement after 3 months on the drug. But it could have been improved by providing more context around these numbers. For example, compared to what percentage without the drug or with some other drug?
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story describes the cost of the drug, which is quite high. The story should not have spent so much time describing the potential for the drug to prevent nursing home days without providing evidence to that effect.
Satisfactory
The story quantifies the percentage of patients who had significant improvement after 3 months on the drug. The story could have been improved by providing more context around these numbers. For example, compared to what percentage without the drug or with some other drug?
Satisfactory
The story mentions the unpleasantness of injection of the drug as a harm. The story could have described some of the other potential harms, such as infection from injection, dizziness and nausea.
Not Satisfactory
The story provides some but not all of the necessary information on the evidence to support the use of this drug. The story mentions that the current study followed 145 patients with unhealed bone fractures taking Forteo but does not mention that there was no control group to compare the results to. Furthermore, the study has not yet been published and the full results have no been reviewed by other experts. These are important caveats that the story should have mentioned when describing the strength of the evidence.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of non-healing fractures. The story is careful to describe the indication for the drug as being slow-healing fractures, which represents a small percentage of the overall number of fractures.
Satisfactory
The story quotes one expert who is not affiliated with the drug company or the current study.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention any other treatments for slow healing fractures.
Satisfactory
The story does a good job of describing when the drug became available and roughly how many have been treated with it since it was approved.
Satisfactory
Clearly parathyroid hormone injections are not a new idea, however teriparatide, or Forteo, is only recently approved for non-healing fractures.
Satisfactory
Because the story used an independent source, it’s clear it didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release.
Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory
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