Generally well done though the story may have been, we’re troubled when a story talks about "a small but protective effect " and uses active verbs to say the drugs "may stave off dementia" when it also states in the story this is not convincing proof of cause and effect. Then how can you have a protective effect? Association, maybe? Causation and protection, not yet.
This is an important and intriguing area of research. But stories that make it sound as though cause-and-effect has been proven – when it hasn’t – don’t do a service to public understanding. See how blogger Emlly DeVoto wrote about the same problem with causal language used in a Guardian article on the same study.
The cost of the drugs was not mentioned. And the possible cost-effectiveness ramifications of the research were not mentioned. As is often the case with 70% of the stories we review, cost just doesn’t seem to matter. But we all know it does.
The benefits are given only in relative, not absolute terms. See our primer on this topic. So when the story says "24 percent lower incidence of dementia" or "The risk was 19 percent lower" or "The risk was nearly halved" – readers need to know 24% of what? 19% of what? Half of what?
One harm was mentioned – "There are potential hazards, such as too-low blood pressure that can lead to damaging falls." That’s an incomplete listing, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt in at least nodding in the direction of potential harms.
The story did state: "The new report describes an observational study, one that lacks the strict controls that are needed for convincing proof." And it further quoted the lead researcher saying, "Any study like this is hypothesis-generating. You only know for sure when you have done clinical prospective trials."
So we’ll give it a satisfactory grade. But we do with mixed feelings.
That’s because we’re troubled when the story talks about "a small but protective effect " and uses active verbs to say the drugs "may stave off dementia." That is terribly misleading to the reader. "Protective effect" when you state in the story this is not convincing proof of cause and effect? Blogger Emlly DeVoto wrote about the problem with causal language used in a Guardian article on the same study.
There is no overt disease-mongering of dementia in the story.
The story did quote one independent expert who injected a cautionary note – in addition to the lead researcher.
The story did note other observational studies that have "implicated various molecules" in dementia. We’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Although never explicity stated, the widespread availability of angiotensin inhibiting drugs can be inferred from the story.
The story doesn’t frame the new study into the context of past research linking high blood pressure to dementia.
There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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