This story reports on the results of a study that looked at physical activity among colon cancer survivors that found that those who engaged in moderate activity 4 or 5 times a week were 50% less likely to experience cancer recurrence or death over a seven year period. These results are intriguing and of great interest not only to colon cancer survivors. However, by no means is this study conclusive and this story does little to address the uncertainties.
The story provides estimates of benefit in relative terms only. We learn in the story that those who exercised more than six hours a week were 47% less likely to have a cancer occurence or die over the study period. But what does this mean? What are the absolute differences? The story should have provided more context for these numbers.
The story does not mention harms. Although excerise can be safe, is it appropriate to recommend increased physical activity to cancer patients, especially those undergoing chemotherapy? Also, although the story does mention that the study was funded by Pfizer, the story does not attempt to quote an independent source who could provide some perspective on the importance of these findings.
The story does describe the design of the study. However, the story should have clearly stated that this was an observational trial and was not randomized. As such, the reader cannot just assume cause and effect.
Costs are also not applicable in this situation.
The story provies estimates of benefit in relative terms only. We learn in the story that those who exercised more than six hours a week were 47% less likely to have a cancer recurrence or die over the study period. But what does this mean? What are the absolute differences? The story should have provided more context for these numbers.
The story does not mention any potential harms of exercise, particluarly in those with cancer. Although it does state “Anyone considering changing or beginning treatment of any kind should consult with a physician,” this is not enough information on harms.
The story does describe the design of the study. However, the story should have clearly stated that this was an observational trial and was not randomized. As such, the reader cannot just assume cause and effect.
By accurately describing the incidence of colon cancer, the story does not engage in disease mongering.
Although the story does mention that the study was funded by Pfizer, the story does not attempt to quote an independent source who could provide some perspective on the importance of these findings.
Treatment alternatives is not applicable in this story because the obvious alternative to exercise is not exercising.
Because this study included exercise of any type, it is not necessary to comment on the availability of treatment.
Novelty of treatment is not applicable in this story.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
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