This is a succint and fairly complete report on the results of a recent research study that found glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate ineffective in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The article failed to stress that the study looked only at the effect on OA of the knee and did not address OA affecting other joints. And while the study failed to demonstrate benefit in management of knee OA, the article included a quote from a patient who uses the supplements and believes they are effective (though whether the individual has knee OA is not clear). Thus the story seems to balance one individual anecdote against the weight of evidence from a study of 1,583 people. People with more severe pain from knee OA probably would want to know the type of chondroitin used in the study as it is not the most common form of the supplement available. It’s important that the story included comments from a journal editorial writer about limitations of the study.
Worldwide sales figure was mentioned, but no information on the cost of supplements was mentioned.
Absolute benefit was presented.
The story mentioned that the study found no serious side effects in six months. It also gave the caveat that the study did not address the issue of longer-term safety.
This article reported on the results of a randomized clinical trial; details on its publication were included as well as potential conflicts of interest of the study’s authors. Other information sources were also mentioned in the piece.
No obvious disease-mongering. Yet, although an estimate of prevalence was given, natural history of knee OA was not mentioned.
Quoted one study author, the author of a companion editorial in the journal, as well as a rheumatologist not connected with the study.
The story mentioned results from the use of Celebrex, a prescription NSAID medication, which was also included as part of the study. But the presentation of alternatives to the use of supplements was incomplete. Nonetheless, we give a satisfactory score.
Mention made of loose regulation of supplements; use of the supplements is presented as common.
The use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin for relief of knee osteoarthritis(OA) pain is not new and no suggestion of it being a novel approach was made.
There is no evidence that the story relied 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