This article does a very good job of outlining the results of a new, as-yet unpublished study comparing the Flumist nasal spray flu vaccine against the traditional flu shot in infants and young children. It clearly explains the context for the study (currently, only the shot is approved for use in children younger than 5; researchers wanted to find out if the nasal spray was safe and effective in this age group). The article describes how the study was done, and clearly explains how the shot and spray were compared. It also notes that the results are being presented at a meeting. However, it would have been helpful to note what this means: they have not yet been peer-reviewed – not yet reviewed by other experts in the field who were not involved in the study.
The article is appropriately cautious about the FDA status of the nasal spray vaccine. While it notes that the vaccine maker plans to apply for FDA approval for use in young children, the article does not make any claims about the likelihood that it will be approved. It notes some safety concerns that are still being studied.
The article’s explanation of how the nasal spray vaccine is thought to work differently from the traditional flu shot is clear and helpful. A mention of the old standby – handwashing – as a way to slow the spread of flu germs, would have been a useful addition, as would information about how the costs of the two vaccines compare.
The article does not mention the cost of either the nasal spray vaccine or the flu shot.
The article notes the actual numbers of children who came down with flu in each of the two groups: those who got the nasal spray vaccine and those who got the flu shot. This detail is provided in addition to the relative difference (55% better for the nasal spray), which by itself could have been hard to interpret.
The article notes how many more children were affected by a side effect of the nasal spray compared with the flu shot; however, it does not mention how many children were affected overall in each group.
The article describes how the study was done, and clearly explains how the shot and spray were compared. It also notes that the results are being presented at a meeting. However, it would have been helpful to note what this means: they have not yet been peer-reviewed – not yet reviewed by other experts in the field who were not involved in the study.
The article quotes both a researcher involved in the study and an independent expert who was not. Quotes from the researcher are different than those included in the press release.
The article doesn’t mention other ways to reduce spread of flu vaccine, including handwashing.
It is clear from the article that the vaccine is currently available for children ages 5 and older.
The article clearly explains that the nasal spray vaccine itself is not new, but that its use in infants and young children is new.
Medimmune, maker of the Flumist nasal spray vaccine, has issued several press releases on these new findings. However, the article also quotes a vaccine expert who was not involved in the study, so it does not appear that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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