Read Original Story

Research shows promise in reversing Type 1 diabetes


5 Star


Research shows promise in reversing Type 1 diabetes

Our Review Summary

Responsible reporting of a promising, but very preliminary finding in diabetes research.

The caveats and context were all there.

Nice job.


Why This Matters

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.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


Not applicable.  Costs were not discussed, which is understandable at this early stage of research which the story emphasized.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Adequate explanation of the results from a tiny study.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


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.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No disease-mongering of Type I diabetes.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


Good sourcing, with two independent expert comments.  The philanthropic funding source for the work was also mentioned.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


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.”

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story clearly explained the experimental nature of the research.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


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.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release.

Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.