This story demonstrates a careful and contextual analysis of the evidence, making clear what the study did show and what it didn’t.
The trials aren’t long enough to show downstream effects on mortality, which is, unfortunately, a problem with most primary prevention trials. The real question here (which is not answered but is discussed) is what is the balance of benefits and harms.
We’ll accept the brief mention – at the very end of the story about aspiring being “cheap” and “cost effective for men over 45.” We all know it’s cheap. But it doesn’t hurt to include a few words about cost and cost-effectiveness.
Appropriate context. With a meta-analysis it is not statistically appropriate to pool absolute risk reductions, so the way the story treated the evidence is as good as can be done (showing the relative risk reduction and an “anchor” in terms of absolute risk. Excerpt:
“The researchers found a 19-percent reduction in non-fatal heart attacks among participants who took aspirin compared to those who did not.
They don’t mention how many people actually suffered such a heart attack, but an earlier analysis of six of the trials showed that out of every 1,000 people, 18 individuals taking aspirin had heart attacks every year, compared to 23 individuals taking placebo pills.
On the other hand, that analysis also found aspirin increased the rate of bleeding from 0.7 to 1 per 1,000 people per year, making the authors conclude the drug was of “uncertain net value.”
The story stated “aspirin increased the rate of bleeding from 0.7 to 1 per 1,000 people per year, making the authors conclude the drug was of “uncertain net value.”
Excellent analysis of the evidence.
Two independent experts were quoted. And the story noted that the research was funded by Bayer.
Embedded in the analysis was at least a nod to other approaches. For example, the story stated:
“There is not universal agreement on what is high risk,” he told Reuters Health. “In my mind, if you have diabetes or multiple risk factors for heart disease — such as smoking or obesity — it is reasonable to take aspirin.” In addition, working to eliminate those risk factors by other means will not only slash the risk of heart disease, but also a host of other health problems.”
Not applicable. The availability of aspirin is not in question.
The story explained that “The new work…pooled the results of the nine trials that have tested the drug in the prevention of heart disease so far, including three that weren’t part of the 2009 USPSTF review.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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