This is an article that reports on a recent research study that suggests that the recommended maximum dose of Tylenol may be sufficient to cause problems in the liver. It would have been helpful for the article to point out that patients should be aware of the acetaminophen content of all medication (prescription and over-the-counter) to be sure that they are not exceeding dosage recommendations. This article raises safety concerns about acetameninphen use. However, the article could have been more clear that the increases in liver enzymes reported are only markers for possible liver damage and that none of the study subjects actually sustained liver damage in the course of the study. In its discussion of liver damage, the article failed to mention N-acetylcysteine which can be used to counteract the liver damage that may result from acetaminophen.
This article could have done a better job of putting the potential problems associated with acetaminophen use in perspective by including some context about other problems associated wth the use of other pain relieving medication. The alternatives (aspirin or other NSAIDs) are not “safe” either. People may move away from acetaminophen to other analgesics based on their reading of this article. Reporting about acetaminophen without the context of the alternatives and their associated problems is an issue.
The story did emphasize the important message that it is not prudent to take more acetaminophen than needed or recommended.
There is no mention of the costs for acetaminophen. But since the focus of the story is on harms of the drug, not on promoting its use, cost is less of an issue.
There were no benefits in this study; the study volunteers were healthy volunteers.
The implied message is that acetaminophen may not in fact be safe. Although that may be the case, the alternatives (aspirin or other NSAIDs) are not “safe” either. People may move away from acetaminophen to other analgesics based on their reading of this article. Reporting about acetaminophen without the context of the alternatives and their associated problems is an issue.
The absolute values for increased liver enzyme levels are presented as a composite value for those taking acetaminophen alone or in combination with other drugs. The article should have included some explanation about what an increase in liver enzymes means. And the story didn’t mention anything about N-Acetylcysteine or NAC that can be used to counteract the liver toxicity observed.
The article mentioned that the news came from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (July 6, 2006), and explained that the information came from healthy individuals who were either given placebo, extra strength tylenol or prescription pain relievers that contain a comparable amount of acetaminophen. The story did not reflect on the possible limitations of the study having a relatively small sample size.
This article raises safety concerns about acetameninphen use. However, the article could have been more clear that the increases in liver enzymes reported are only markers for possible liver damage and that none of the study subjects actually sustained liver damage in the course of the study.
A spokesperson from the pharmaceutical company which had been developing an acetaminophen and opioid combination medication (also the company that funded the study) was quoted. McNeil, the makers of Tylenol, as well a clinician not involved in the research were also quoted.
The story didn’t discuss alternatives to acetaminophen. The alternatives (aspirin or other NSAIDs) are not “safe” either. People may move away from acetaminophen to other analgesics based on their reading of this article. Reporting about acetaminophen without the context of the alternatives and their associated problems is an issue. It also would have been useful to include information about N-Acetylcysteine or NAC, the apparent antidote to the liver toxicity noted in the study.
The article mentions that acetaminophen is available over-the-counter; it also mentioned the restriction in England on how many acetaminophen tablets can be sold at one time.
The article accurately reported that acetaminophen is a widely used, over-the-counter medication.
This article does not appear to be based solely or largely on a news release.
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