Strong points:
Room for improvement:
An estimated 10 million people in the United States have the diagnosis of osteoporosis, a bone-weakening disease. Most of those are women. While millions are taking the widely prescribed drugs for this condition, the medical community is still evaluating side effects. Consumers have to take responsibility for discussing risk vs. benefit balances with their treating physicians, and remain open to learning new medical discoveries as the years pass. Well-reported stories on risk are vitally important as consumers have to navigate uncertain medical territory.
The cost of a year’s treatment should have been included. The story only says the drug are “cheap.” Cheap to one woman may be a financial burden to another.
The story did a good job – starting with the headline – of portraying the tradeoffs between harms and benefits as found in the latest study.
The story does a good job of telling the reader how few women suffered the unusual thigh fracture. They further give some context by explaining how those on the drugs reduced their harm from more-typical fractures by 24 percent.
Reuters squeaks by on this one, by mentioning how many women were in the study – 205,000 – which is often a measure of quality. But they don’t explicitly say anything about the methods or quote independent sources about the quality of the evidence.
Good job of avoiding mongering.
If anything, the story could have given a line of context regardingwhat a hip fracture truly means as a life-changer for many elderly people. It is common for such a fracture to end independent living and force people into nursing homes for the remainder of their lives. The Centers for Disease Control estimate one in four hip fractures in the elderly results in a year or more in a nursing home.
Reuters gives us two voices in this piece, including a study author and a treating physician. We are not told anything about whether the treating physician has any ties to the industry, but we couldn’t find any in a brief online search.
The story does briefly mention alternatives, including hormone therapy.
The story makes it clear that these drugs are widely available.
There isn’t anything novel about the drugs and the story painted an appropriate picture of their use.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
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