In this story we learn that there is a new rotavirus vaccine for babies, replacing an earlier vaccine that had been pulled from the market due to safety concerns. This vaccine is FDA approved and now available. Although there is mention of a large study conducted by Merck, there is no description of the study design, so readers have no way of evaluating the strength of the evidence and no quantitative estimates of benefit are provided. The fundamental question, ‘how well does the vaccine work?’ is left unanswered. Furthermore, the story states that this vaccine appears to be safer than the previous one, however there is no evidence provided to support this claim. The author states that the vaccine will cost $187.50 for the three-dose series, making it one of the most expensive vaccines ever marketed. Although the author does say that this cost will put a strain on state-sponsored vaccination programs, there is no attempt to try to quantify the magnitude of this strain or comment on the potential cost-effectiveness of this new vaccination program. The costs are likely to be significant. Even if the U.S. healthcare system will be able to pay for it, Americans are the least likely to benefit from it since only 50-60 American children die of rotavirus per year. In third world countries, however, the story is different. Thousands of children worldwide die every year from rotavirus infection because of the lack of good medical care to treat the symptoms, and one wonders if Third World children will have access to this drug.
The author states that the vaccine will cost $187.50 for the three-dose series, making it one of the most expensive vaccines ever marketed. Although the author does say that this cost will put a strain on state-sponsored vaccination programs, there is no attempt to try to quantify the magnitude of this strain or comment on the potential cost-effectiveness of this new vaccination program.
No quantitative estimates of benefit are provided. How well does the vaccine work?
The author states that this vaccine appears to be safer than the previous one, however there is no evidence provided to support this claim. Although not statistically significant, there were more cases of intusussecption with the vaccine in the trials.
Although there is mention of a large study conducted by Merck, there is no description of the study design, therefore, we have no way of evaluating the strength of the evidence.
Although the author provides some information on the prevalence and seriousness of rotavirus in the US and abroad, he does not mention that there are multiple strands of rotavirus and the vaccine is not equally effective against all of them. The vaccine is about 75% effective in preventing disease (especially severe diarrhea) and the incidence of emergency room visits and hospitalizations is also reduced. The author does exaggerate the seriousness of rotavirus in the U.S, because although all kids get infected with the virus, few have disease from it and it only accounts for about 40-50 deaths.
The author does quote an independent source, an epidemiologist from the CDC.
No mention of alternatives.
There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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