It is bad enough that the story asserts that bisphosphonates prolong life, based on a study design that can’t possibly prove that. Adding the researchers’ musings about a possible mechanism is pure speculation, and just compounds the error.
We think of the thousands of women thinking about osteoporosis who could be misled by the claims in this story and we shudder.
Observational research findings are important and intriguing, but reporting on them requires more context than what was provided in this story if people are to comprehend the true strength or weakness of the available evidence.
There is no discussion of the cost of these drugs. If one is to accept the premise of the story – that taking these drugs “extends life by five years” – one needs to explore how long you would need to take the drugs in order to gain this benefit. And how much would that cost? Not insignificant questions.
Some quantification was provided, but we doubt that many readers could understand them. The story stated: “The death rate for women taking bisphosphonates was 0.8% per 100 person-years, compared with 1.2% for women taking hormone therapy, 3.2% for women taking calcium and vitamin D and 3.5% for women taking no treatment. In men, bisphosphonates also lowered the death rate compared with other therapies.”
Do readers understand person-years?
Why not give the raw numbers?
The story at least mentioned harms, but didn’t give any sense of the scope of the problems. Again, in the context of a story about longterm use of these drugs, the question of harms is important.
The story never addressed the limitations of drawing conclusions from observational studies.
It did state: “It’s not clear what accounts for this benefit. It could be that people taking bisphosphonates are generally healthier or get better overall healthcare. But the researchers suggest that the link is tied to physiology. When people age and lose bone, heavy metals, like lead and cadmium, which are stored in bone over a lifetime are released into the bloodstream and can affect health. Preventing bone loss may prevent the release of these toxic substances and the damage they do.”
But it should have an overarching statement about why you can’t establish cause and effect from this type of study. Read our primer on this topic.
It is bad enough that the report asserts that bisphosphonates prolong life, based on a study design that can’t possibly prove that. Adding the researchers’ musings about a possible mechanism is pure speculation, and just compounds the error.
Not applicable. The story is about extending life, not about any one condition.
No independent expert was quoted in the story. This was badly needed to provide the perspective of the limitations of this research – rather than a headline that stated as fact, “Osteoporosis medication extends life by five years.”
We’ll rule this not applicable – and perhaps that’s being kind. The story could have at least nodded in the direction of what else women can do to try to extend their lifespan – rather than simply the notion of taking bisphosphonate drugs to do so.
Not applicable. The availability of the bisphosphonate drugs is not in question.
The story doesn’t give any context about whether there’s ever been any other research on this question.
The story admits that it took its quote of the co-author from a news release. There is no evidence of any independent reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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