This 750 word story provided readers with a good synopsis of the study results and did so in plain and straightforward terms providing definitions for the average reader. We liked the fact that the story linked the study results to a reasonable set of recommendations for men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.
News stories in recent years have so often breathlesslly promoted new radiation therapy approaches such as proton beam therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy. It is important to bring the public reviews of the evidence that show “currently available evidence is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of radiation treatments for localized prostate cancer compared with no treatment or no initial treatment.”
The only discussion of cost was one phrase deep in the story – ” proton beam therapy in particular is expensive” – but that was it.
Proton beam therapy and a related approach – intensity modulated radiation therapy – are being used more commonly and both are very expensive. Within a story that discusses the lack of evidence, cost certainly deserved more attention.
The lack of evidence of benefit was clear in the story.
The story did state: “Retrospective studies, however, found that radiation treatments were associated with increased urinary or bowel problems, compared with no treatment or no initial treatment.” We wish it had provided more detail, but we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
The story made it clear that it was based on a systematic review of the literature.
The story turned to Dr. Durado Brooks of the American Cancer Society for an independent perspective.
The entire story was about a systematic review of studies comparing different doses of radiation and different types of radiation therapy – and whether any has been shown to be a better option than “watchful waiting.”
Not applicable. The story didn’t explicitly address the availability of radiation facilities, but that wasn’t necessary.
The story made clear that this is one in a series of federally funded studies on prostate cancer treatment options.
The story did not rely solely on 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