Weaker on costs, quality of the evidence, benefits, harms, and comparison to other approaches or other research. That’s quite a few holes in comparison with the competition on this one.
It’s interesting to learn that an inexpensive generic drug could have a positive effect against lung cancer. But this story didn’t deliver sufficient detail or context for readers to be able to judge the current state of the research.
The story doesn’t mention the cost of metformin, which is relatively cheap as a generic, thus adding to the potential appeal of this approach. This should have been mentioned.
Unsatisfactory because all risk reduction figures were in relative terms, not absolute. Read our primer on this. Why not tell us 40-50% fewer tumors THAN WHAT? 72% fewer tumors – compared TO WHAT?
There was no discussion of harms. We don’t know what harms there might be in mice on metformin, but we shouldn’t have to wonder! After all, we weren’t the ones writing about "strong" benefits of metformin in mice!
The story was really weak on this, only mentioning how "strong" the findings were. Meantime, in comparison, the HealthDay story advanced into a discussion of possible mechanisms of action, the fact that the mice studied had been genetically engineered to be susceptible to lung tumors, and the fact that a second study was reported in a very small number of humans.
Big picture: this story didn’t put "mouse research" in the headline or in the first sentence and then failed to discuss human research that DID exist in this specific area. By comparison the HealthDay story ended with the quote, "what’s proven in humans is totally another level."
No overt disease mongering of disease and death from use of tobacco products.
A hesitant satisfactory on this one only because it quoted a comment from an expert "who wrote a review on metformin research in the same journal." There was no evidence of any interview having been conducted, though.
No meaningful comparison with other lung cancer prevention approaches and not even with parallel human research in this field – as the HealthDay story did in at least mentioning a small human study of metformin in colorectal cancer patients.
The story says metformin "is already widely used in people."
The story did mention some other past research on metformin and cancer risk.
Not applicable because we can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release. There’s no evidence of any independent interviewing, since quotes seem to come from published statements or from journal review comments.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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