We would have liked to have seen information on costs and the potential risks of the treatment. The story could have benefited from a deeper analysis of the evidence and from the use of some independent experts.
We wonder if this was rushed onto the web because there were a number of copy errors:
Even when writing about a topic as seemingly mundane as tennis elbow, stories should avail themselves of a broad range of expertise. Were this treatment to become widely available, it could be a boon for chronic pain sufferers, but we can’t make that assessment based on the limited amount of information provided here.
The story made no mention of costs. Given that platelet-rich plasma already is being used for a variety of conditions, including tennis elbow, it would not have been difficult to get a range of costs. A basic Google search reveals a number of sources declaring that insurance plans do not typically cover plasma injections. This all would have been good information for the story.
The benefits are essentially quantified, but we thought the story could have gone further in helping readers understand what the numbers mean.
There’s no attempt to quantify harms here. After reading this story, one might assume that there’s nothing risky about this procedure.
The story does say that the study was in 28 patients, but that’s about all the information readers are given about the potential limitations of the study.
The story nicely avoids disease mongering and, right in the lead, explains that this treatment would work best in patients “where other treatment methods have failed”.
The story only relied on a single source.
The story mentions alternatives, which is why we give it credit here. It could have done a better job explaining why all other treatment methods should be exhausted, short of surgery, before turning to plasma injections.
The true novelty is never established.
The story does 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