There has been recognition that RA results in gradual, cumulative destruction of joints and other parts of the body. Since we now have powerful treatment options, there has been a push to begin using them earlier. However, it’s harder to identify RA in its early stages, when diagnostic techniques such as RF testing aren’t as helpful. Therefore, there is a need for new diagnostic techniques for the identification of patients with joint problems in the early stages of RA.
That’s the context, and the social problem, described in the article. The study in question, however, is a little different. It’s about understanding the processes that lead to RA and techniques that may, in the future, lead to a test for patients who may develop RA in the future. There is no available evidence that treatment can stave off RA in patients who don’t have symptoms yet.
We would have liked to have seen the article use additional sources besides the press release. Where it does not rely on the press release, it seems to stray too far. The article claims that the investigators "say the finding paves the way for developing a blood test for early diagnosis of the mysterious disease." We don’t believe they said that, neither in the published study nor even the press release. The authors say the technique could help identify people at risk for developing RA in the future — people who are not yet patients — as opposed to patients who have an early stage of the disease.
Contrary to the article’s headline, the study in question did not assess a blood test for RA, and there is no blood test now. After the headline, the story really never improved.
Costs are not applicable as there is no diagnostic test developed yet.
Quantified benefits do not apply, as this study was not a clinical trial.
Quantified harms are not directly applicable to this type of research. Note, however, that there is a harm of assigning a label of "pre RA" to a perfectly healthy person with a positive blood test of unknown significance. There are always potential harms of screening; as in this story, though, they are often ignored.
This was an epidemiologic study, not a clinical study, not a study of a new diagnostic technique or new diagnostic criteria for RA. It may be a subtle point, but we feel the evidence was misapplied to the wrong context.
We would also have liked a clearer description of who was being studied.
In a sense, the article could be seen as disease-mongering. Let’s say in the future, there is a blood test in hospitals to look for these blood markers. You’re feeling healthy and go in for a physical. As part of your regular bloodwork, your doctor orders this test. (We’re not saying she ever would, but bear with us.) The test results indicate you have several markers of pre-RA in your blood. Does that mean you’ve been diagnosed with RA? No. RA is a clinical disease, and there are well-defined diagnostic criteria. In this scenario, you don’t have any joint problems — and you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis if you don’t have arthritis.
The article’s statement "the finding paves the way for developing a blood test for early diagnosis" implies that the presence of these blood markers is a surrogate for a diagnosis of arthritis.
No independent source is cited.
While potential conflicts of interest are not provided, according to the published study, the authors did not disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.
The story allows the researcher to say "Our findings present an opportunity for better predicting the risk of developing RA" but we are not told anything about any other research to guide such predictions. Are we to believe this is the ONLY research in this field?
We think the story is misleading on this point. While it notes that a blood test has not yet been developed, and that further studies are needed before that could happen, the headline of the article makes it sound like the article is reporting on a blood test. This study was not about a clinical test — a "blood test" for patients. It was far more preliminary than that.
This criterion does not apply, as there is no diagnostic test yet.
The story appears to rely almost entirely on a press release.
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