This follow-up piece draws attention to secondary data analyses of the much talked about AIDS vaccination trial conducted in Thailand. According to the results released in September, the vaccine showed a statistically significant reduction in risk of HIV infection. However, two additional analyses published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine did not find statistical significance. This story underscores the need for healthy skepticism about early announcements of unpublished research.
The writer did a nice job explaining different types of analysis and statistical significance, which many physicians and lay people have difficulty grasping.
Since the vaccine is not available, a discussion of costs is not warranted.
The piece does a nice job of presenting the results of the initial report in terms of absolute and relative risk reduction; however, absolute data is not provided for the secondary analyses. To its credit, the story clearly and effectively explained statistical significance as it relates to this research. As stated in previous coverage, the story reiterates that the benefits of the vaccine are modest and additional research is needed.
Given that this is a follow-up report focused on newly released data, a discussion of the potential harms of the vaccine is not necessary.
This story does an excellent job defining the different types of analyses used to evaluate the outcome data. The story also points out the results of the secondary analyses have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggesting the calculations have been checked for accuracy.
This story does not engage in disease-mongering.
This story does not provide commentary from any independent sources. In this case, a single comment from a biostatistical consultant would have provided helpful perspective.
Given the nature of this follow-up story, a discussion on the existing alternatives to HIV prevention may not be warranted.
This story makes it known that the vaccine is still in the testing phase and is not yet available.
The story makes it clear that researchers have been working on an AIDS vaccine for decades.
The story does not appear to be based on a press 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