Ironically, the NPR ombudsman just wrote about concerns that NPR sometimes invites reporters from other news organizations to talk on the air about a story they got that NPR didn’t. In this case, why does NPR need to rely on a four-day old Reuters story in order to get a second opinion? Couldn’t they make a call and get their own interview?
With the example the NPR ombudsman raised, she wrote: "NPR has recently beefed up its newscasts, staffed an investigative unit and is pouring money into its digital operations. All these are signs of a strong news organization. But if NPR wants to be considered one of the nation’s top-flight news organizations, it should be more judicious." Doesn’t that apply here as well?
The story said that "skipping diagnostic nerve blocks can save $10,000 in medical costs."
No quantification of potential benefits. Only a vague, borrowed (from Reuters) reference to "the value of the diagnostic tests" and an anecdote from the researcher supposedly supporting the case that they can be skipped.
No quantification of harms incurred or avoided.
No evaluation of the quality of the evidence – too short a synopsis for that. So we don’t really get a sense of how the study was done.
No disease-mongering. The story was about pinpointing causes of low back pain – a condition as broad as the ocean.
The NPR news org can’t be given credit for eliciting an independent source – only for "borrowing" what Reuters reported. Why not get your own source?
No discussion of alternatives – not for diagnostic testing nor for treatment of the underlying back pain.
The story is clear that nerve blocks are part of "a common diagnostic technique."
Not applicable. No claims of novelty made. And none needed to be.
Not applicable. We can’t be sure if the story relied on a news release, but we know it relied at least partially on a Reuters story. Should this warrant an unsatisfactory score here? Maybe.
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