We applaud the restraint the WebMD headline writer employed with “Drug May Reduce Plaque in Brains of Alzheimer’s Patients.” That’s about all you can say at this point, and the body text of the story explains why. In that regard, this story got off to a better start than its HealthDay competitor.
This story was better in quantifying harms, but the HealthDay competition was better in explaining the history of this area of research and what else is now being investigated.
It would not have required much more effort or space for either news organization to pick up on the better parts of its competitor’s effort. Maybe they will compare and learn from this example. We hope so.
Not applicable. It’s understandable that costs wouldn’t be discussed at this early stage of research.
Adequate explanation of results observed in study participants at different dosing levels.
More importantly, the story simply explained: “Since it’s not completely clear what reductions in brain plaques mean for Alzheimer’s patients, the researchers are unable to say whether treatment with gantenerumab will bring improvement to patients with Alzheimer’s. They are currently involved in a new study that they hope will answer that question.”
Better than its HealthDay competition in that WebMD actually told us how many people experienced harms in the study.
The story allowed a Roche senior VP to say the results “went beyond our expectations” but countered that with “What is not entirely known is if these plaques cause Alzheimer’s…Therefore, it’s not known if reducing the amount of them will slow or stop the disease.”
The story added an important independent perspective and identified the study co-author as being a senior VP of the drug company making the drug.
We preferred how HealthDay explained: “There are approximately one dozen therapies, including vaccines, that are currently in the pipeline….none are ready for prime time.”
The story ends with an appropriate send-off: “We need more studies to know if it is safe or effective.” The early, experimental nature of the research is clear.
The HealthDay competitor did a better job of explaining where this study fits in the history of research into beta-amyloid.
There was clear evidence of independent reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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