NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Doubt Cited on Aspirin-Blood Thinner Combo

Rating

5 Star

Doubt Cited on Aspirin-Blood Thinner Combo

Our Review Summary

This story offers a good overview of the results of a trial that combined the blood thinner Plavix with aspirin to try to prevent heart attacks in people who don’t appear to have heart disease but who have conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The story describes key outcomes of the study, and includes a clear statement that the results do not change recommendations for patients who seem to benefit from the combination – “people who recently have had heart attacks or a procedure to unclog an artery.” This story stands as a good example of what can be included in a 700-word story.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Cost of Plavix is included in the story.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story not only provided good data on benefits, but also a definition of which type of patients benefited.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Good, easily-understandable explanation of how the study was done.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The opposite of disease mongering, this story explains the study’s questions of preventive benefit from the Plavix-aspirin combination, including one researcher’s quote: “You don’t use this drug for patients without coronary artery disease.”

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story includes input from researchers, editorial writer, and from drug maker. However, it is not clear if the story included any input from any independent source not directly tied to the study.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

Story explains why researchers thought adding clopidogrel to aspirin might be helpful in a broader group of people.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

Does not appear to have relied on a press release.

Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory

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.