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

Some Blood Pressure Drugs May Stave Off Dementia

Rating

4 Star

Some Blood Pressure Drugs May Stave Off Dementia

Our Review Summary

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. 

 

Why This Matters

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.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

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.

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

Not Satisfactory

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?

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

Satisfactory

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.

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

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no overt disease-mongering of dementia in the story.

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

Satisfactory

The story did quote one independent expert who injected a cautionary note – in addition to the lead researcher.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

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.

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

Satisfactory

Although never explicity stated, the widespread availability of angiotensin inhibiting drugs can be inferred from the story.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t frame the new study into the context of past research linking high blood pressure to dementia.

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

Satisfactory

There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 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.