NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Chicken Collagen Tested As Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment

Rating

3 Star

Chicken Collagen Tested As Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment

Our Review Summary

 This is a story reporting on a study comparing oral dosing with chicken collagen (daily) to methotrexate (weekly) for symptom relief for people with rheumatoid arthritis.  While doing a good job reporting about the study, the story did not clearly explain the nature (beyond mentioned that they were ‘standard measures’) or extent of the benefits observed.  People with arthritis would want to know what was actually measured.  Also, the story discussed availability of chicken collagen as a nutritional supplement but didn’t explain if that is similar to the stuff used in the study.

 

Why This Matters

 This is an important area for research because the standard treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are associated with substantial toxicity, and in the case of methotrexate, are unsafe in pregnancy.  That is a particular problem because RA often is diagnosed in younger people and is more common in women.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

 The story provided information about the costs of both methotrexate and chicken collagen.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

 Although the story presented quantitative information about the benefit observed for the chicken collagen and methotrexate groups, it didn’t fully explain the nature of the ‘benefit’ it was reporting on.  In this case, it was the percentage of individuals in each group who demonstrated 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria.  Absolute improvements in scores for the two treatment could have been reported.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned that the methotrexate group had more gastrointestinal discomfort.  However there was no comment about possible observed specific harms with the chicken collagen.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story included sufficient detail about that study it reported on.  

The criticism about some of the benefit observed possibly being the results of a  placebo effect is germane not only to that improvement seen for those taking chicken collagen but those taking methotrexate as well.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

 The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

Perhaps a brief comment on the prevalence and morbidity associated with rheumatoid arthritis would have been useful for understanding why the study results may be of interest.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

No comments from independent sources.

The story indicated that the study authors reported no conflicts of interest. 

But it wasn’t evident that anyone was interviewed for this story.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The study itself compared chicken collagen with methotrexate, which is an older treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.  But the story did not include mention of any of the disease modifying therapies that are increasingly popular. 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story provided availability information about both methotrexate and chicken collagen.

However -while mentioning that chicken collagen was available as nutritional supplement in the US, not a drug – the story could have mentioned that there is no oversight to ensure that such a "nutritional supplement" actually contains what is indicated on the label.  It might have also indicated that the chicken collagen used in this study was prepared in the laboratory of the study investigators.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The idea of using oral dosing with collagen as a means of managing or treating rheumatoid arthritis is not quite as new and potentially exciting as the story seemed to suggest.  There have been a scattering of research studies published over the past 8 or 9 years which have looked at this question. 

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have relied on a news release.

Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory

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.