The story is based on a preliminary report presented at a scientific meeting. The results of the study in question have not been analyzed completely and have not been subjected to peer review. Although the study results appear to be good news, we really won’t know until the entire study is published.
Sometimes journalists on deadline at a scientific conference with hundreds and hundreds of papers being presented may forget to remind readers that there are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from talks presented at meetings because they have not been published, the full data have not been released, and the work has not undergone the kind of full review that a journal would employ before publishing. These are all important caveats
The story provides some information on the cost of Coumadin and the recently approved Pradaxa. Although the price for Xarelto has not been set in the US, a quick check of the price in Canadian pharmacies could have been done easily. The cost to the consumer in Canada is about $9 a day as compared to about $0.50 a day for brand name Coumadin. (It took us seconds to find this online.)
The story notes that rivaroxaban appeared to reduce the risk of stroke as well as did warfarin.
While mentioning several harms that were not observed in this study of rivaroxaban reported on, the story neglected to inform us about any specific harms that were observed during the study of this drug.
Although providing readers with the actual data comparing the risk of stroke or blood clot for coumadin and rivaroxaban, the story did not point out that the results of the study were presented at a meeting and have not yet been peer-reviewed. The important take-home message is that there are limitations about the conclusions that can be drawn from such meeting presentations.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story quotes unaffiliated experts without apparent links to the company who provided useful information for readers.
The story compared the new medication, rivaroxaban, with coumadin. It mentioned another blood thinner, Praddax, which has already won approval by the FDA.
The story accurately indicated that rivaroxaban is currently not available in the US but is already in use in other countries.
The story was clear about this being a second new drug that may be a suitable substitute for coumadin for certain people in certain situations.
The story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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