This piece presents relative benefits of aspirin for men and women without providing similar context of the risks from daily aspirin use. And the piece provides no absolute figures – only relative. So, for example, it says that “in women, aspirin reduces the rate of stroke blood clots in the brain, the most common type, by 24 percent….in men the daily aspirin cuts heart attack risk by 32 percent.” But 24 percent of what? And 32 percent of what? The journal article upon which the story is based did state the absolute values for both benefits and risks. Those absolute values show that, over about a six and half year period, daily aspirin is predicted to result in 2 fewer strokes and 2.5 more major bleeds per 1000 women; and 8 fewer heart attacks and 3 more major bleeds per 1000 men. To many viewers, those numbers will mean more than 32% or 24%. This meta-analysis of retrospective studies did find that aspirin had different beneficial cardiovascular effects for men and women, and aspirin use was associated with significant bleeding risk for both men and women. When reporting on therapeutic claims, journalists should present the chances for benefit and for harm, and it should be presented in absolute terms, not just in relative terms.
Cost said to be ‘cheap’ but no actual figure of cost was provided.
Presented relative risk reductions only; the study upon which the story is based provided calculation of absolute risk reduction, but the story didn’t use it.
Harms of treatment mentioned without providing estimate for size of that increased risk.
No mention was made that the study reported on was a meta-analysis, retrospective research by definition. What was the quality of the evidence?
Quickie consumer soundbite saying that taking a daily aspirin was an insurance policy. The only expert quoted was first author of the study.
No mention was made of other means to reduce cardiovascular risk.
States that treatment is readily available. Neglects to mention that it is an over-the-counter medication, but most folks know this.
This is not a novel treatment. Article points out that aspirin has been in use clinically for 200 years.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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