This 627 word story attempts to summarize a 404 word abstract submitted at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. In doing so, it fails to meet even the most simple requirements. The story fails to note the "study" was a retrospective review of patients and not a prospective trial, fails to discuss confounding variables such as additional treatments for psoriasis and fails to describe the methodological issues associated with the use of non-validated single observer measurement of outcome. While the story includes some attempts to temper the enthusiasm expressed in the headline, it does so inadequately.
The headline and beginning of this story are overly enthusiastic about a long stream of potential benefits from statins. Stories shouldn’t lump all of this together because the evidence is quite variable and, in this case, quite weak.
There was no discussion of costs.
The study reported on failed to find a statistically significant improvement in psoriasis. Despite this, the story headline, first sentence and overall tenor report about benefit even though this is inappropriate given the study results.
The story failed to note any of the potential side effects of statins.
While acknowledging that the results reported on were based on a preliminary study and mentioning that the benefit observed was not statistically significant, the rest of the wording of the story was misleading. The opening line is just plain wrong: "Once again, cholesterol-lowering statin drugs have been shown to be good for more than the heart." NO, they haven’t. Not in this study.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Independent sources were used to write this story; there was, however, no information about sources of funding for this research.
This story was about the possibility that statin medications have a role for improving psoriasis. The story did mention that examining whether statins improve psoriasis in the absence of high cholesterol was one area to be explored. There was no discussion of other medications or medication combinations that may be under study to treat psoriasis and there was no mention of the lack of controls in the retrospective study reported on.
While statins are in widespread use, the story never emphasized that statins are not approved for treating psoriasis.
The story clealry indicated that it was reporting about a potential for a new benefit that might be associated with the use of statin medications.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a news 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