In just 310 words, this story covered key points of study results clearly, concisely and without hyperbole. It used terms like "may boost survival…may provide a new way…modest success" instead of overstating.
It is a difficult balance reporting on promising study results for a terrible disease and doing so without sensationalism. This story found that balance nicely. It proves that in only 310 words, health news stories can do a reasonable job addressing our criteria on how new findings should be reported.
Not applicable. Costs not discussed but we understand that at this point in the research. Nonetheless, we wish the story had used even one short line, as the Wall Street Journal did, to say the drugmaker said it was too soon to discuss pricing.
Good job on this, especially putting results in context in calm, measured terms:
Good job quantifying the harms found in the study, the severity of those harms, and including one – death (in 1.5% of patients on the experimental approach) – that many news stories didn’t report.
The story didn’t discuss a key point raised in some other stories, such as one by TheStreet.com that reported that the study "lacked a comparison to a placebo or true control, which makes the results harder to interpret."
The study author was interviewed along with a clinician who has used the drug. Drug company funding of the study was disclosed.
Story explains that this is "the first drug to improve advanced melanoma patients’ survival in a large, definitive trial."
The story was clear about the experimental stage of the approach.
The novelty – that is "the first drug to improve advanced melanoma patients’ survival in a large, definitive trial" – was explained.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely on 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