Worst of the three network TV segments we reviewed on this same PARP inhibitor study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
No data on benefits.
No discussion of potential harms.
No experts interviewed.
No discussion of the problems with drawing conclusions from small, early Phase 1 studies that are not primarily designed to measure effectiveness.
This felt like a TV network morning show that wanted to look like it was aware of a big study because they saw it on two other networks the night before – yet didn’t want to invest the time to do it right. Just call it a breakthrough and the holy grail and call it a day.
No discussion of costs.
No discussion of potential harms – which – as reported in the NEJM article, are worth discussing.
No details on the evidence – only that it was "incredibly effective." No discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from small early phase 1 trials that are not primarily designed to show effectiveness.
Not much discussion of the cancers involved, so this criterion is N/A.
No expert interviewed. NO source cited.
No context given to put the new research into the broader picture of cancer research. Only enough time to call it the holy grail of cancer research.
No discussion of the early phase of research – just that it may be the holy grail of cancer research.
A nod in this direction, but the segment was just too brief to put the new research into any context of alternative targeted chemotherapy research.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. No source was cited. NO expert interviewed.