Headlines matter. When a story begins under the banner, "Alternative to Statin Shows Promise," it leads readers to immediately believe that an alternative exists. This drug isn’t even on the market yet. Does it hold promise? How much promise can be established in a small, 12-week trial? Why is the hyperbolic language necessary? At the same time, important data – such as how big was the effect size – was missing.
It’s way too early to draw any conclusions about the drug eprotirome. The strong cautionary comments from an independent expert at the end of the story are important, but will readers be swayed by the "promise" before they get to those comments?
There was no discussion of costs – not even a projection. If you can label something as an "alternative to statins" in the headline, then you can certainly at least project for readers what this "alternative" might cost.
A major weakness of the story: it did not quantify the effects seen in the study in any way.
The story says that the drug " did not cause the feared side effects on the heart and other organs that have plagued similar thyroid-based treatments." But can these side effects be expected to show up in a small, short-term trial?
Nonetheless, because of the strength of the concluding comments by the independent expert – "But if there is one thing we’ve learned about drugs in this arena, it’s that we need large trials to see how they measure up in terms of risk and benefit…I’m not sure I’d want to sign up for that one before I had longer-term results. Being impotent is no fun."- we’ll give this story the benefit of the doubt.
Overall, while there was some discussion of the need for more study to track possible long-term effects, there still was not enough emphasis on how limited are the conclusions that can be drawn from such a small, short-term (12 weeks) study.
There was no overt disease mongering in the story.
Important caveats were included in the independent expert’s views at the end of the story.
Since results were not quantified in the story, we really don’t even learn how the drug compared with statins alone.
We really never learn the status of the drug eprotirome. Is it approved? Is it used for anything else now? Readers may assume that it is because the headline already labels it as an "alternative to statins."
The story didn’t put this study into the context of other research on alternatives to statins.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely 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