LA Times blog headline: "Oral multiple sclerosis drug shows promise."
AP story headline: "MS pills show promise and risk."
Two huge differences should jump out at you. AP mentioned pills – plural – because two drugs were reported on in this week’s NEJM. And AP mentioned risks right along with harms.
The blog entry ran only 305 words, compared with more than 700 for the AP story. We needed the extra words because they provided needed context and balance.
Studies on two MS drugs were published in NEJM this week. Why did the LA Times blog feature only one?
No costs were mentioned. The story could have at least mentioned what is the cost of the drug when now used to treat hairy cell leukemia.
Again, only one drug was mentioned and benefits given in only relative terms.
This was a major shortcoming of this piece: harms were never mentioned. They were emphasized – even headlined – in the AP story.
For whatever reason, the LA Times chose to write about only one of the two oral MS drugs described in studies in the New England Journal of Medicine this week. AP reported on both. For this reason, we grade this unsatisfactory.
The story used at least one independent source.
Inadequate job on this – in that it didn’t even mention another drug reported on in the same issue of the NEJM.
One strength of this story, in comparison with the AP and NPR story we reviewed, is that it stated: "The drug company MD Serono, an affiliate of Merck, has requested approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market the tablet. However it recently received a "refuse to file" letter from the FDA, which means the agency is requiring additional information or data. MD Serono said it is pursuing the matter with the FDA and hopes to re-submit its application."
Given that this story reported on only of the two oral drugs being tested for MS that were described in the NEJM this week, we think the paper overemphasized the novelty of the one it chose to highlight.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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