Yes, it could lead to a breakthrough, but, after tests on just a few tumor samples (something not disclosed in the article), it could also lead to something far less than a breakthrough.
The story fell victim to over-enthusiastic language ("…this is the first time the process, known as RNA interference (RNAi), has been shown to work in humans"). To the average reader this would suggest that there was a treatment effect and that is a far cry from what actually was seen.
At least the story ended with appropriate caution from one expert: "This is the first qualitative ‘yes we can do it’ publication and it really has to be kept in that perspective." (emphasis added)
No costs were discussed, which is understandable at this early stage of research. Not applicable.
Didn’t give readers any sense of how many samples were tested and what the results were. The Reuters story at least explained that the researchers reported on results in three tissue samples.
The story paraphrased the researchers. "The precision of the process is crucial to limiting side effects." But it never discussed what even the potential side effects of this approach might be. It would have been relatively easy for the story to have included a few words about the potential downsides, including "off target" side effects during an exaggerated immune response or the shuttinf off of non-targeted genes resulting in adverse outcomes.
The story stated that this was an "early phase clinical trial" but didn’t explain how early – that tissue samples of only three patients were tested. In addition, the results have not been subject to peer review, something the story didn’t mention. The story also crossed a line when it stated, "The experiment proceeded just as planned, as biopsies later showed." This would suggest that the study was in fact completed and the results were completely as expected. However, a more careful review of the letter does not support that view.
Not applicable because no diseases were discussed in any detail.
Two independent sources were quoted.
There was no discussion of other targeted therapy research – something the Reuters story at least briefly described.
Unlike the Reuters story, this story was very clear with this statement: "Obviously the process will have to be refined and optimized before it’s actually used for treatment."
Good job on establishing the novelty of this approach – and reminding readers that this work lead to a Nobel Prize in 2006 for research in worms – "a far cry from humans," as the story states.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely 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