Overall, a solid job of reporting.
Several criticisms:
There is always the risk of fostering false hope in reporting on Alzheimer’s drug stories. Except for its headline, this story did a very good job of putting the research results into an appropriately cautious context for readers.
Not applicable. It’s understandable that costs wouldn’t be discussed in such early research.
The story adequately described the responses of study participants at different dose levels. And it clearly established that “it’s by no means certain that reducing levels of amyloid plaque would stave off memory loss and other mental declines.”
Other important caveats included:
A strict application of this criterion warrants an unsatisfactory score. HealthDay only discussed “potential for serious side effects” but didn’t report how often they occured.
WebMD, by comparison, gave specifics that two of six patients receiving the highest dose “developed possible findings of vasogenic edema, or fluid collecting in the brain tissue, as well as micro-hemorrhages.”
To its partial credit, HealthDay did discuss several potential side effects, but why not report what was actually observed in the study you’re reporting on?
We applaud how HealthDay placed caveats very high, very early in the story.
Independent experts perspectives were helpful. Funding by the drug’s manufacturer was disclosed.
The story explained that “There are approximately one dozen therapies, including vaccines, for Alzheimer’s disease that are currently in the pipeline” …and “none are ready for prime time.”
Nice touch.
The early, experimental stage of the research was clear in the story.
The story explains that the study was “among the first to show the effects” of the drug in people. Actually, another anti-amyloid drug (bapineuzumab) showed similar findings in a study published in Lancet in 2010. Although there was a 25% reduction in beta amyloid there was no corresponding improvement in function.
The story explains that there are a dozen or so other therapies being investigated.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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