We applaud the degree and clarity of the context and explanations provided by this story – about how this is not new info, how the FDA had problems with this kind of data when it reviewed it earlier, and how there were financial ties between the study authors and the drug maker.
This is the kind of explanatory journalism we appreciate: seeing through the headlines and the trumpeting of benefits that may come through even in journal articles and their news releases.
Not applicable. There was no discussion of costs, but the entire story was about the troubled path of a drug that was denied FDA approval last Fall.
This story didn’t quantify the benefits reported in the latest published study as well as the competing CNN.com story did. The story did make it clear that the journal article and accompanying news release “touted” benefits – but that “In its assessment of those improvements in a June 17 memorandum last year, the FDA’s scientists were not quite as breathless.”
But by not giving the actual numbers seen in the study, the story deprives readers of the chance to assess the value of the combo pill for themselves.
No discussion of potential harms.
Excellent job. Readers should have no question after reading:
Good job on this. The story stated clearly: “The study described in the Lancet was funded by Vivus. Three of its seven authors are employees of Vivus, a fourth was an employee of the contract research organization that coordinated the study for Vivus. The lead author has served as a consultant to Vivus, and the second author acknowledged receiving donations, honoraria, consulting fees or grants from Vivus (as well as several other pharmaceutical firms with interests in weight-loss drugs).”
There was an adequate analysis of the drugs that were the focus of the latest published study. The story stated:
This story was clear that the drug Qnexa was “investigational” and had been denied FDA approval last October.
The story does a good job painting the picture of the landscape of Qnexa and two other drugs that have not won FDA approval.
More importantly, while some other news organizations reported, for example, on the “significant promise” in “the new report,” this story emphasized: “this study is not so new — and its findings may be less weighty than might be concluded with its publication in this respected medical journal.”
It’s clear that this story did not rely on a news release. In fact, it countered some of the claims in a news release.
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