The story never explains its headline that tPA “may prevent disability from mild stroke.” How often was this seen? How can you draw that conclusion from the records of 4 people?
This story may have received a generous score of 3 stars but its shortcomings are very difficult to overlook.
Mild stroke is an important health issue. It deserves more explanation than what was given in this story.
The story states that the drug costs about $2,000.
No, as in “evidence” above, the benefits in the 4 patients are really never explained.
Not good enough. The story only says the drug isn’t without risks, chiefly brain bleeding. How often does this occur? This is a big issue. If even one of the 4 people whose records show they got tPA in this analysis had problems after hospital discharge, that could throw any potential benefit out the window.
This is a weakness in the story.
If only 1% of patients (4 in all) in the analysis were given tPA, how can such sweeping recommendations be made? The story never addressed this.
We do, however, always appreciate the boilerplate language about the limitations of talks given at scientific meetings.
One independent source was quoted. But it would have been better if he’d been quoted on the quality of the evidence.
There is no discussion about alternative approaches for people with mild strokes. At best, the story compared the new treatment (in a sample of 4 patients!) with routine standard of care (unexplained). The problem is that the story never told us how the 4 patients treated with tPA fared.
The story isn’t crystal clear on the widespread availability of the drug tPA but it can be inferred from the story.
It’s clear from the story that it would be a relatively novel approach to give tPA to mild stroke patients, since it appears it is hardly ever done now.
It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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