This is a story about a study that found that aspirin decreased the incidence of colorectal cancer in a group of individuals with a specific genetic mutation that predisposed them to develop this cancer.
While the story meets many of our criteria, we find two gaping holes:
Although a precise cost was not mentioned in the story, aspirin was described as ‘cheap’. That’s OK; we’re confident that people know this.
The actual rates of colon cancer were not given. Circuitously, readers might be able to piece this together – if we can assume that half of the 1,000 people studied got aspirin and half got placebo pills. So one might assume that six people in about 500 on aspirin got colon cancer versus 16 in about 500 in the placebo group.
But the abstract of the talk which we found online stated that "long term followup data have been accumulated on 628 of the cohort" – so we don’t actually know what the rates were that were presented in the talk.
This is one of the weaknesses in reporting on studies presented at meetings but not yet published.
The story needn’t be circuitious and needn’t make readers assume or make them do the math.
Why not just spell out the actual rates and the actual numbers?
Although there was no mention of any harms of taking aspirin that were seen during this particular study, the story did mention that "Aspirin can cause significant side effects if not used as directed by a doctor" and the fact that "it can irritate the stomach and intestines and cause major bleeding."
The story didn’t make clear that the results haven’t yet been evaluated by the scientific community. And because the story is based on a talk at a scientific meeting, we could only find an abstract online – an abstract which raises questions in our mind about the actual rates of cancer found – something not made clear in the story. See criterion for "Quantification of Benefits of Treatment" below.
The story included this quote: "This doesn’t mean that everyone should start taking aspirin if they’re worried about bowel cancer," said Henry Snowcroft of Cancer Research United Kingdom.
The story included comments from clinicians and researchers who were not involved in the study reported.
The story did not mention the lack of options for colorectal cancer prevention. The guidelines about frequency of screening in this particular cohort or the general public were not discussed as part of this story.
The story appropriately reminds readers that "aspirin has been used widely for years to treat minor aches and to alleviate fevers."
At the end of last year, the same group of investigators (J Burn, first author) published a paper in the New England Medical Journal which found aspirin had no effect on incidence of colorectal cancer in apparently the same group of individuals with Lynch Syndrome.
It should have been mentioned that the outcome at 4 years failed to show differences between the group whereas an examination of the data at a later time point may suggest a benefit from the treatment. "May suggest" is an important point here because it is not clear that the investigators accounted for the fact that the difference reported may have arisen simply by chance.
Because numerous sources were interviewed, it’s safe to assume the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
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