The results of the latest breast cancer prevention trial, the STAR trial, received wide press coverage across a variety of media. The coverage varied tremendously in its quality. This New York Times piece, with the benefit of a few weeks to prepare, does an excellent job of explaining the controversy surrounding this trial and why many groups, including the American Cancer Society, are skeptical about the findings.
This story does a great job of quantifying the benefits of raloxifene compared to tamoxifen. Not only did the story provide absolute numbers in quantifying the benefit, but it also explained why presenting only relative risk reductions can be deceiving. The story also provides sufficient information on the harms of raloxifene compared to tamoxifen (including highlighting the fact that the differences between the two were not statistically significant) and adequately describes the design of the study. The story does explain that one downside of raloxifene is that it does not appear to reduce the risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which tamoxifen does. There is one error in the story – about 50% of DCIS will progress to invasive cancer, not 10% as stated in the story.
The story mentions that raloxifene is already marketed as Evista, a drug used to prevent osteoporosis after menopause, but that Eli Lilly has petitioned the FDA to approve it to prevent breast cancer.
The story does not engage in disease mongering; it accurately describes the 5-yr. risk of developing breast cancer for an average 60-64 year old woman. The story even provides a link where the reader can calculate their own predicted risk.
Because the story quotes multiple sources from different backgrounds, the reader can be reassured that the story does not rely solely on a press release as a source of information.
The story does not discuss costs of treatment.
No costs were mentioned.
The story does a very good job of quantifying the benefits of raloxifene compared to tamoxifen. Not only did the story provide absolute numbers in quantifying the benefit, but it also explained why presenting only relative risk reductions can be deceiving.
The story provides sufficient information on the harms of raloxifene compared to tamoxifen. The story does explain that one downside of raloxifene is that it does not appear to reduce the risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which tamoxifen does. There is one error in the story – about 50% of DCIS will progress to invasive cancer, not 10% as stated in the story.
The story adequately describes the design of the study.
The story accurately describes the 5-yr. risk of developing breast cancer for an average 60-64 year old woman. The story provides a link where the reader can calculate their own predicted risk.
The story quotes multiple sources who have differing opinions of the significance of these findings.
The story mentions tamoxifen as the alternative to raloxifene.
The story mentions that Raloxifene is already marketed as Evista, a drug used to prevent osteoporosis after menopause, but that Eli Lilly has petitioned the FDA to approve it to prevent breast cancer.
The story is clear that raloxifene is an existing drug but that Eli Lilly is asking the FDA to approve it for another purpose.
Because the story quotes multiple sources from different backgrounds, the reader can be reassured that the story does not rely solely on a press release as a source of information.
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
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