No discussion of drug costs – which are substantial.
And the story didn’t explain, as the New York Times did, that 38% of vemurafenib trial participants had to stop taking the drug or lower the dose because of side effects. And there wasn’t a word about side effects from ipilimumab.
The competing New York Times story used clear restraint in describing the findings:
But this story had none of that. Instead, readers only read about:
A better balance was possible.
No discussion of costs – only of potential sales volume.
Isn’t the significant cost of both drugs worth at least one line a story like this?
Adequate job reporting the benefits seen in the two trials.
The story mentioned only skin rashes and joint pain from vemurafenib, but the story didn’t explain, as the New York Times did, that 38% of trial participants had to stop taking the drug or lower the dose because of side effects. And there wasn’t a word about side effects from ipilimumab.
One independent source – a panel moderator – and a stock analyst were quoted.
The story adequately described the comparison data reported in the two studies.
Adequately described. The story appropriately notes that vemurafenib is experimental and Yervoy has been approved for use in the US.
The relative novelty of the two drugs was described.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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