Alzheimer’s disease is a common and tragic disease. In spite of much research, there is currently little that can be done to stop or slow its progression. A hot area of research is in early detection. Two years ago, Medicare decided to cover PET scanning for diagnosing Alzheimer’s, with the hope that it could help with treatment and allow patients and their families to help with future planning. However, Medicare’s decision was very controversial and there are many issues surrounding the use of PET scanning for this conditon. This story does little to enlighten readers and is flawed in several ways.
The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of PET scanning. Most importantly, the story does not mention that even if Alzheimer’s is detected early, there is not much that can be done for it. The drug Aricept has only minor effects on the progression of the disease. Although the story mentions neurologic exams, the advantages and disadvantages of PET scanning compared to existing approaches are not described. How will the scanning fit in with current practice? These questions are not answered in the story.
The story does not comment on the novelty or availability of PET scanning. Although the story hints at false alarms, this is insufficient information on the harms of scanning. How do such “false alarms” impact peoples’ lives?
The story does quote two directors of major Alzheimer’s research centers. The story could have quoted other clinicians or researchers who could have provided some additional perspective. By accurately describing the prevalence of Alzheimer’s, the story avoids disease mongering. The story does mention that the scans are expensive – $1000 to $3500 and are not necessarily covered by insurance. The story could have provided costs of the traditional neurologic exam by comparison.
The story does mention that the scans are expensive – $1000 to $3500 and are not necessarily covered by insurance. The story could have provided costs of the traditional neurologic exam for comparison.
The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of PET scanning. The story states, “several studies suggest it can effectively provide an early warning”, but does not give any quantification for the magnitude of effects observed in these studies. Most importantly, the story does not mention that even if Alzheimer’s is detected early, there is not much that can be done for it. Aricept has only minor affects on the progression of the disease.
Although the story hints at false alarms from the use of PET scans, this is insufficient information on the harms of scanning. What would a “false alarm” entail? What does it do to a person who receives this news?
The story does not adequately describe the strengths of the available evidence. It says “Neurologists say PET is an excellent tool for distinguishing between Alzheimer’s and frontotemporal dementia.” But it then notes that “experts disagree over whether PET is useful for determining whether people with mild memory problems are suffering from early Alzheimer’s. Several studies suggest it can effectively provide an early warning. The catch is that there is insufficient research to determine exactly how accurate it is.” The story could have explained why there is such uncertainty; what is the nature of the studies that have been done?
By accurately describing the prevalence of Alzheimer’s, the story avoids disease mongering.
The story does quote two directors of major Alzheimer’s research centers. The story could have quoted other clinicians or researchers who may have provided some additional perspective.
Although the story mentions neurologic exams, this is insufficient information on the alternatives. What are the advantages and disadvantages of PET scanning compared to existing approaches? How will the scanning fit in with current practice? These questions are not answered in the story.
The story does not comment on the availability of PET scanners.
The story does not comment on the novelty of PET scanning. How long have they been used for this purpose?
We can’t be sure if the story relied on a press release. However, given that sources from several institutions were interviewed, it appears that independent reporting took place.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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