A first glance may suggest that this is a controversial topic because the piece is entitled “Stem Cells Carry Hope for Lupus.” However, these are stem cells derived from the patient’s own bone marrow and are thus not fodder for the embryonic stem cell debate. This article reports on the use of a common cancer therapy, hemapoetic stem cell transplantation (HSTC) in the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are not responding to standard treatment. While this preliminary study will be followed by a larger, randomized clinical trial, the current results reported are quite hopeful for those with this autoimmune disease. Weaknesses in the story included a lack of information about the number of people who do not respond to standard therapy, a lack of information on side effects and costs of the treatment, and the failure to include input from another, independent source.
The costs for HSCT was not mentioned.
No estimate for the percentage of patients who
did not respond to standard treatment and who would be expected to die within the time frame of the study. (However – and
this is no excuse for the journalist – this information was not in the original research reported on either.)
The side effects of the
treatment were not mentioned
The article explained that the study it reported on was small and that the results were
preliminary and did not contain a control group for comparison.
Presented an estimate for the number
of people affected by lupus (1.5 million in the U.S.) as well as an estimate (5-10%) for the proportion of patients who did
not respond to standard treatment.
Only a quote from the first author of the study was included. No
independent second source.
Article mentioned that
lupus patients are usually treated with immunosuppressive drugs and that for 5-10% of patients, these drugs are ineffective.
While the original article was clear in presenting that HSCT was used as a treatment for this population for whom the
standard approach was no longer effective, this was not explicit in the article.
The results presented are acknowledged to be preliminary, with the next step being a second, larger trial.
This suggests that use of HSCT for treatment of lupus is not likely to be widely available for some time.
This article reported on
using nonmyeloablatic hemapoetic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) to treat patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
who not responding to the standard therapy. This medical therapy is currently in use as a means of treating several kinds of
cancers.
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