Overall this 633-word story captures the essence of the study and places the test results into a reasonable context.
This small study supports the hypothesis that oxytocin is involved in the social behaviors associated with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders, and it suggests a potential therapeutic role for oxytocin in people with such disorders.
Although this is a very preliminary study, some mention of costs should have been included, even if simply to note that the cost of potential treatments is unknown at the present time.
The published study itself does not quantify benefits clearly , perhaps understandable given that it is a laboratory study, not a clinical one. But we give the story a satisfactory rating for doing a reasonable job of putting the study results into context. The brevity of the response and the inconsistent findings across individuals were noted appropriately in the story.
While harms are not quantified in the published study itself, this story does well to emphaszie the importance — and current lack — of safety data for an alluded-to use of oxytocin in children with autism.
We do know a good deal about the toxicity of oxytocin when given to women to induce labor and for a few hours. In addititon to possible severe allergic reactions, water intoxication is an important side effect.
We give the story kudos for noting several limitations in this research, including the wide variations in individual responses and a lack of evidence that the strategy "would be effective at all" in children or young adults. The author also notes a lack of long-term safety data, and she describes challenges in translating the delivery method to a real-world application.
We would have liked to have seen a bit more characterization of the preliminary nature of this laboratory study and its very small sample.
The story does not resort to disease-mongering.
The story cites several independent sources and provides several quotes for balance. The study authors themselves identified no conflicts of interest.
The story does discuss the treatment of autism and that no drug therapies are currently available for the social dysfunction observed in people with Asperger syndrome and other forms of autism.
The story is clear that the strategy used in this laboratory study is uNPRoven in the real world, particularly in children and young adults. They even note the issues in translating the delivery method to clinical practice.
The article notes that there have been prior studies that also demonstrated an effect of oxytocin in people with autism.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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