No info on costs, on harms, or on the scope of benefits – and nothing on the real important measure of whether the approach improved the detection of colon cancer.
An improved method of colon prep for colonoscopy would be appreciated by many. But we’re not given sufficient information in this story to judge the true possible merits of the approach the story promotes by simply rewriting a news release.
No discussion of cost.
All the story says is that "Those who took the combination of the pill and liquid were better able to tolerate the preparation than were those who drank a gallon of a mixture of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes." Does that mean EVERYONE? We weren’t told.
As stated above, we’d also like to know how doctors judged the effectiveness of the colon prep of the pill & liquid approach vs. liquid alone.
And did it lead to better detection of colon problems?
No discussion of potential harms of lubiprostone (Amitiza).
For its other approved uses, the company lists side effects of nausea, diarrhea, headache and abdominal pain.
The story lacks details on the evidence that REALLY matters – how good a job did the combination of pill & liquid do in cleansing and prepping the colon for examination? And did it help detect colon cancer any better? We were’t told.
Not applicable. There was no meaningful discussion of colon cancer, so there was no opportunity for disease-mongering.
Only the lead investigator of a study funded by the drug company was quoted. There was no disclosure of any financial tie between the researcher and the company. Independent gastroenterologists’ perspectives would have helped make the story more credible.
Only an incomplete and shallow comparison with liquid colon preps.
Are doctors using this pill for colon prep yet? Was this the first such trial? There was one phrase that mentioned it’s already approved for chronic constipation so we know it’s on the market but are doctors using it off-label for this use? The stage of this research just isn’t clear from the story.
no claims of novelty were made but neither was any context given about other research to improve colon prep.
All information and quotes appear to come directly from a 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