Responsible reporting of a promising, but very preliminary finding in diabetes research.
The caveats and context were all there.
Nice job.
As one of the independent experts was quoted saying, ” If this is reproducible and correct, it could be a phenomenal finding.” The story emphasized that this is still a big IF.
Not applicable. Costs were not discussed, which is understandable at this early stage of research which the story emphasized.
Adequate explanation of the results from a tiny study.
There was no discussion of potential harms. The story could have at least emphasized that not much can be known about potential harms after such a small, short-term study. The human trial was under-powered to detect harm. At the same time BCG vaccine has been around for a long time and has been widely used throughout the world, so there is data on the known side effects and complications of the vaccine. At the same time, this is a new use and larger trials and post marketing surveillance will be needed before the potential harms are known.
The story did an excellent job evaluating the quality of the evidence and providing readers with an explanation of how “the findings contradict an essential paradigm of diabetes therapy.”
Good sourcing, with two independent expert comments. The philanthropic funding source for the work was also mentioned.
The story offered this solid context:
“The findings contradict an essential paradigm of diabetes therapy — that once the insulin-secreting beta cells of the pancreas have been destroyed, they are gone forever. Because of that belief, most research today focuses on using vaccines to prevent the cells’ destruction in the first place, or on using beta cell transplants to replace the destroyed cells.
The new findings, however, hint that even in patients with long-standing diabetes, the body retains the potential to restore pancreas function if clinicians can only block the parts of the immune system that are killing the beta cells.”
The story clearly explained the experimental nature of the research.
The story did a good job on this criterion, estabiishing the relative novelty of the work while explaining that there has been related animal research.
It’s clear the story did not rely 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