Despite a few attempts at caveats, this story still used misleading language pointing to possible benefits – from a study that can’t establish cause and effect or benefits.
Readers also are not given sufficient context on the true scope of the “29% lower risk.”
And the story appears to be based solely on a news release, with no input from an independent source.
Pancreatic cancer is an ugly problem. Stories about it deserve more context than this.
Not applicable. Readers should know the lost cost of aspirin.
The story said that aspirin users were 29% less likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who used other types of pain relievers or nothing at all. But what was that baseline rate? It’s impossible for readers to judge the scope of the potential benefits when given just the 29% figure. 29% of what?
All the story said was that aspirin “carries some side effects.” It never explained what they are nor how often they may occur. Even one additional line in the story could have done this.
While the story explained that such a study can’t establish cause and effect, it nonethless still used language suggesting possible beneficial effects: www.healthnewsreview.org/tips-for-understanding-studies.php#tip4
The language used to describe observational studies is important to avoid misleading readers. And it doesn’t take much to make these changes. See our primer.
The story also never addressed the limitations of drawing conclusions based on talks at scientific meetings, which have not undergone rigorous peer review. We have a primer on that topic as well.
Not applicable only because the story really didn’t give any background on pancreatic cancer, so it couldn’t have disease mongered.
No independent source is quoted.
We’re really not given any context or background about pancreatic cancer in this short, 320-word story. And we certainly didn’t learn of any other research into ways to prevent pancreatic cancer.
Not applicable. The availability of aspirin is not in question.
We’re not given any context about whether this is the first and only research that looked at this question.
It appears that the story was based solely on a news release, since the researcher quote comes from a news release. And no independent source is cited.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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