Although highlighting the effect of this product on blood pressure, the story did not explain how much blood pressure dropped.
The story also didn’t say how common the side effects are or how often people have to discontinue the medication due to side effects.
It would have been helpful to remind readers of the possible pitfalls that may be ahead and that little is known about the long term use of this product in terms of both weight loss and potential risks that might result.
Obesity and high blood pressure are very common conditions. There are few treatment for obesity that have been demonstrated to be enable people to lose weight and maintain that loss.
There was no discussion of costs.
The story included quantitive information about weight loss over time. It did not quantify the impact on blood pressure.
The story mentioned specific side effects of this particular medication combination.
To be most informative to readers, the story should have mentioned that the potential for long-term harm is not known. And the rate at which people stopped taking the drug due to side effects should have been included.
While indicating that several studies had been conducted in more than 4,500 people with various characteristics, the story never mentioned whether the studies are considered definitive or not; it also did not mention that the results of these studies have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. And while reporting that weight loss appeared to be dose dependent, there was no discussion of how weight loss compared with those in control groups. Lastly – as the focus of the story appeared to be on an effect on blood pressure, it would seem that the story should have included some detail about the magnitude of the change.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story mention that the study author and Dr. Aronne received funding from the manufacturer of this drug. It also included a quote from the president of the American Society of Hypertension who does not appear to have a financial tie to this product.
There was no information about how well this product works in comparison with other approaches to weight loss.
It’s pretty clear from the story that the combination of the two drugs is not yet available.
The story reported that the drug was a combination of two commercially available medications.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely 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