Maybe the disconnect between journalist and reader is best (worst) seen in this line from the story: "The group of statins that showed the greatest effect in reducing risk are classified as lipophilic." All statins are lipophilic. And the story gave readers no definition, no explanation of what lipophilic even means. So it’s like a high school term paper where the student slips in big words to impress the teacher.
Readers should not be impressed.
Over and over again we see the same flaws in health care journalism stories. These are not just academic issues. These flaws expose stories that simply fail to communicate vital information to readers.
Even though both brand name and generic versions of statin medication are available, there was no information about costs in this story. Why this is so – in a story that suggests a possible future expanded market for these already widely-used drugs, is a puzzle.
The story reported the more impressive-sounding relative risk reduction (i.e. "The analysis shows there was a 12% reduction of colorectal cancer risk among statin users.") rather than indicating absolute risk reduction. This is such an important issue – so often misunderstood – that we offer a little primer on the topic.
Just as bothersome, the story really whiffed on the opportunity to explain the limitations of observational studies, and in so doing, it may have confused many readers. The headline says "may cut risk." But the first line says both "significant association" and "reduced risk." Wait a minute! Which is it? An association? Or an established cause-and-effect piece of evidence? Readers should have been told that observational studies CAN’T establish cause and effect. So the story is wrong to use language like "may cut risk" or "reduced risk" in the headline and in the first sentence.
There was no mention of potential harms associated with the use of statin medication. That’s a significant omission.
The story was very clear that the results reported on were from a presentation at a meeting and as such had not undergone ‘peer review’. This was not done in the Reuters story on the same study. This caveat – at the end of such stories – has become boilerplate language for WebMD and we applaud them for it.
No independent expert voices appeared in the story.
There was no discussion of other factors that influence risk of colon cancer. It would require only a line in the story to do so.
There isn’t any question about the availability of statins.
The story did not provide insight about the historical context for this work. For example, there are studies dating back 20 years raising questions about whether this class of medication influences cancer risk.
The story admits that it pulled its quotes from a news release? Why? And why no interview quotes from an independent expert?
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