Instead, this story clearly and efficiently reported what was found and why:
We were a bit puzzled, though, why the story never mentioned that the study in question also looked at statins and found “no significant protective effect was observed with statin exposure.” Negative findings deserve publicity as well.
A story that could have been hyped was saved by an important independent expert perspective in the piece.
Costs aren’t discussed, but everyone should know the costs of aspirin, ibuprofen or related painkillers.
The story adequately explained: “..more than 40 percent of people who were cancer-free said they’d been taking NSAIDs at least once per week for more than 5 years, versus only 28 percent of those who developed melanoma.”
More importantly, it quoted one expert, “I wouldn’t recommend (taking NSAIDs to reduce melanoma) just based on this” new study.
The story stated: “NSAIDs – which include aspirin, naproxen (marketed as Aleve), and ibuprofen (Advil) — have side effects, she noted, such as stomach bleeding.” It didn’t note whether study looked at side effects in those taking them for five years. Still, we’ll rule this satisfactory for remembering to include some mention of potential harms.
The story includes this evaluation by an expert: “Unfortunately, the technique — comparing people with melanoma to those without – is fraught with potential problems, said Asgari. For one, you have to get the comparison right, she noted; there’s always a concern that people without cancer who agree to participate in the study may be more health conscious to begin with, and it’s this that protects them from cancer, not their use of NSAIDs. “Did you somehow get a biased sample of people, and is that why you’re seeing this difference?”
No disease-mongering of melanoma in the story.
The story turned to Dr. Maryam Asgari of Kaiser Permanente Northern California and the University of California San Francisco, who co-authored a 2008 study. Oddly, no author/researcher on the new study was quoted.
It’s curious that the story never mentioned that the study also looked at statins and found “no significant protective effect was
observed with statin exposure.” Why wasn’t that mentioned? Negative findings deserve publicity as well.
Not applicable. There isn’t any question about the availability of aspirin, ibuprofen or related painkillers.
The story gave some historical context: “Animal experiments have suggested that the class of painkillers known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could play a role in preventing melanoma, but a large 2008 study failed to find any evidence to support this possibility.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Shout out to @HealthNewsRevu (that has had such an impact on how journalists report industry-sponsored medical misinformation) from @ShannonBrownlee and @JeanneLenzer1 on today's Viral Misinformation webinar
#COVID19
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
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