We don’t review stories on animal research unless they make a claim that leaps into the realm of human application. This story did that when it quoted one of the researchers saying "This remarkably simple method could easily be coupled with current stem cell treatments to enhance their effectiveness." Since the source of the story was a medical center news release and since the researchers "are founders of a company that has filed patents for the techniques," we would expect a story to apply more scrutiny to these claims.
A recent analysis concluded that "Published animal trials overestimate by about 30% the likelihood that a treatment works because negative results often go unpublished." But overestimates of efficacy may also come when your only source is a medical center news release and your only quotes come from someone who stands to gain financially from promotion of an approach.
Not applicable due to very early stage of research.
We weren’t told how many times the approach was tested, in how many rats.
No discussion of even potential harms – just how "remarkably simple" it could be to enhance treatment effectiveness.
Not one word on how huge the leap may be from "toy magnet" research in rats to human application. Yet the story allowed the conflicted researchers to say, unchallenged, "This remarkably simple method could easily be coupled with current stem cell treatments to enhance their effectiveness."
Not applicable – no meaningful discussion of heart damage in humans.
The source is a medical center news release. And the quotes, from that news release, are from a researcher who is "founder of a company that has filed patents for the techniques," according to the story. So, while, that conflict was disclosed, there is no independent perspective in the story. That’s unsatisfactory in our view.
No such comparison. No context given on other related stem cell research.
The story barely implied that there is still work to be done before this is available for people. Barely satisfactory.
No context given on other research to enhance cardiac stem cell interventions.
The story states that its source is a Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute news release. There’s no sign of independent reporting or vetting of the claims.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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