To its credit, this story noted early and prominently that the study found no decrease in the death rate among patients with stroke who were admitted on the weekends compared with those admitted during the week. However, it shared many of the shortcomings of the HealthDay report, including lack of information on costs and harms and a vague description of the benefits of tPA. Perhaps most important, the story inflated the difference in treatment between patients admitted on weekdays and weekends. They call it a "20% difference," but fail to show that it is 1.1% vs 0.9% – a 2 in 1000 difference that is not clinically important.
As the story points out, when you suffer a stroke on a Saturday or Sunday, "waiting until Monday for aggressive treatment is not an option."
As with the HealthDay report, this article did not mention costs.
The story makes the vague claim that tPA "can improve patient outcomes following stroke." Some detail on what outcomes are improved, and by how much, would have been useful for readers. The story also did not quantify the results of this study very well. It says there was a "20% difference" in the use of tPA between the groups, but fails to show that it is 1.1% vs 0.9% — a 2 in 1000 difference in absolute terms. Given the relatively finely balanced benefit to harm ratio, this finding is not clinically important even though it is statistically significant due to the huge sample size.
This story made no mention of the serious risks associated with tPA therapy.
Although it did not mention some of the limitations that the HealthDay report correctly called attention to, this report got it right regarding the issue of mortality. The lack of mortality benefit among patients admitted on the weekends was identified in the second paragraph of the story, and an expert quote emphasizes that no clinical trials have ever shown a mortality benefit from tPA therapy.
There was no evidence of disease-mongering in this story.
As noted above, the story quotes an independent expert who does not appear to have a conflict of interest regarding this issue.
As with the HealthDay report, this criterion is not applicable for this story.
Similar to the story from HealthDay, this report emphasizes that an early diagnosis is a critical factor in the availability of tPA for stroke patients. Although more detail could have been provided, this is the key point.
This story does not suggest that tPA is a novel treatment for stroke.
The story quotes from an email exchange with one of the study researchers and another independent expert. There is no evidence that the story relied on the AMA press release about the study.
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