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

MS Patients May Soon Bypass Painful Injections

Rating

4 Star

MS Patients May Soon Bypass Painful Injections

Our Review Summary

The online story (we listened to the radio version as well) did some nice things that other stories didn’t do – including providing a direct link to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine – when many news organizations surprisingly fail to refer to accompanying editorials when they do appear.

 

Why This Matters

This story was a nice little example of how a short radio piece and web article can provide appropriate context on a research story.

Criteria

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

Not Satisfactory

Benefits were described but only in relative terms.  Half of what?  A third of what?  We wish absolute data were provided.

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

Not Satisfactory

Potential  harms were listed but not quantified.  How often do they occur? 

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

Satisfactory

The radio piece didn’t give much information on how the studies were done – and therefore, not much on the quality of the evidence. But the NPR online piece at least offered direct links to both studies and to an editorial – something often overlooked by many news organizations covering studies in journals.  For that reason, we give this a satisfactory grade.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease mongering.

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

Satisfactory

The story used one independent expert source in addition to interviewing one of the study authors.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

For a short radio and web piece, the story did a good job of comparing the new drugs with injections (through the story of a patient’s experience) and mentioning the problems with another MS drug Tysbari and mentioning another new oral MS drug that may be approved soon.

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

Satisfactory

The story was clear that the drugs in question are not yet on the market and that "federal regulators may go slowly with the two new drugs."

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story appropriately addressed the novelty of the oral drugs – and added something the AP and LA Times stories did not – about approval of another new oral MS drug that may occur soon.

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

Satisfactory

The story clearly did not rely 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.