This is the better of two articles we reviewed about a newly published study. It was quite balanced overall, although it misinterpreted the key result and would’ve benefited much from soliciting an outside expert’s opinion on the study.
Despite a few shortcomings, this article has substantially more balance, critical analysis, and thoughtful framing than the HealthDay story we reviewed on this same study.
Costs are not discussed explicitly.
This story makes the same misinterpretation of the key result as the other story on this topic we reviewed. It states that "The results showed those who took salsalate at each of the dosage levels experienced a beneficial decrease in blood sugar A1c levels of 0.5% or more." That makes it sound like the floor — that everyone in each salsalate group had no less than a 0.5% drop. As discussed in more detail in our review of the other article, that wasn’t the case.
While harms were not quantified, we give the story the benefit of the doubt for discussing potential safety issues prominently in the study, including a very early mention of proteinuria and the need for more long-term safety data.
The article is up front about the preliminary nature of this evidence, and reminds us of it later. It also mentions that the study used 3 doses of salsalate and placebo, and that subjects continued their other diabetes therapies. The article gets special points for emphasizing the limitations of the study, which were also prominent in the journal’s summary for patients: a small study population, a short follow-up time.
Not applicable because the story didn’t really give any detail about incidence or serousness of diabetes.
No independent sources were used.
The investigators didn’t disclose any substantial conflicts of interest related to the study.
While it didn’t compare the drug to existing alternatives, it really couldn’t because at present no head-to-head data exists about this drug compared to other antidiabetic therapies, just data comparing different doses to each other and placebo.
Comparing the drug’s bleeding risks to that of aspirin is not directly relevant to this criterion because aspirin is not currently used to treat hyperglycemia.
The article notes that salsalate is commonly used in arthritis but it’s not recommended yet for the treatment of diabetes.
The article describes salsalate as a salicylate derivative, like aspirin, that is often used to treat arthritis. It even mentions that there are reports of its use in people with diabetes over a century ago.
The article does not appear to rely largely on the news release. Unlike the other article we reviewed, it contains several pieces of information not found in the 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