Worst of the three network TV segments we reviewed on this same PARP inhibitor study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
No evidence.
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.
None.
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.
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