While it earns credit for presenting the benefits in absolute terms and for including the number-needed-treat to save a life, this was the only story of the three that failed to include an independent perspective on the results. A good effort considering the space limitations, but a few more caveats would have been appreciated.
Even in a brief such as this, there needs to space for an independent take on the issue.
TXA costs $10 per treatment, according to the story. Although this cost is characterized as low, the story could have noted that the price may be prohibitively expensive in many poor countries.
The story focuses on mortality difference between the TXA and placebo groups and presents the results in absolute terms. It helpfully notes that TXA would need to be adminstered to 66 patients to prevent one death.
Although it passes along the claim that TXA might save "tens of thousands of people" without questioning it, the story doesn’t hype the assertion quite as vigorously as the competing coverage.
The story mentioned there was no increase in deaths due to blood clots in the TXA group. We understand it’s a blog brief – so this is sufficient.
The story provides the bare essentials noting the outcomes in absolute numbers and in number needed to treat. Unfortunately, several important facts were not reported including the number of sites involved, the number of countries and other essential attributes of the study. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
It’s difficult to find room for an independent perspective in a 245-word brief, and this story didn’t find the room.
Numerous other pro-coagulatory agents are used to help control bleeding in trauma patients. The story didn’t mention any of them.
The story states that TXA is a 25-year-old medicine that is approved in the U.S. to prevent bleeding in hemophiliacs who have teeth pulled.
The story mentions that TXA is already used to control bleeding during surgery and doesn’t portray the treatment as new.
While there’s no evidence that this story lifted anything directly from a news release, we can’t be sure to what extent this story may have relied on one. We’ll call it not applicable.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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