This kind of study can’t prove cause-and-effect. No such explanation was given in the story. This study isn’t published, isn’t peer-reviewed yet, and won’t even be presented in a talk at a meeting for two months yet. The story discusses a 40 percent risk reduction. 40 percent of what? From what to what?
How you frame a story is so important. Putting "may stave off Parkinson’s" in the headline, and quoting a doctor who said he would "definitely discuss ibuprofen use" with his patients – without strong caveats – is troubling in this story.
Not applicable. Costs not discussed but most people know that ibuprofen products are inexpensive.
We also continue to be puzzled by the number of stories that use only relative risk reduction figures, not absolute risk reduction figures. We have a brief primer on this topic. The point is that when the story discusses "40 percent lower risk," we need to know 40 percent of what?
The story did at least mention that "persistent use of ibuprofen can lead to gastritis, or inflammation of the stomach lining."
We continue to be puzzled by the number of stories – like this one – that don’t find a way to at least briefly mention the limitations of some studies. This story, for example, never mentioned that this was a a meta-analysis – a study of previously published studies. Look at how MedPageToday.com published caveats:
One independent source was quoted. But we’re troubled by the story letting that source get away with saying he would "definitely discuss ibuprofen use" with his patients – because it would be very easy to find other sources who would say it’s far too early to discuss ibuprofen use with their patients. In fact, a MedPageToday.com story stated that the lead researcher himself said "that it’s too early to make any clinical recommendations based on the observational data, which not only need confirmation in prospective trials but also cannot prove causality."
Although the story mentioned that levodopa is the current standard treatment for Parkinson’s, there was no discussion of any other research into prevention of Parkinson’s Disease.
The story states that ibuprofen is a common anti-inflammatory drug.
The story failed to put the new analysis into the context of existing research, as MedPageToday.com did, for example:
One independent source was quoted, so it’s clear the story didn’t rely solely 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