This story reports on new American Heart Association guidelines to help women lower their risk of cardiovascular disease.
But the story story sensationalized the incidence of heart disease and stroke by casting them as something nearly all American women are in danger of. While it is true that heart disease and stroke combine to be the most common cause of death of US women, the story failed to point out that although the same is true for men, women die, on average at older ages.
This is not to say that women ought not take their cardiovascular risk seriously, but to be most helpful to the reader, that risk needs to be placed in an understandable context.
No attempt was made to quantify the possible benefit in risk reduction.
The story did not mention how the guidelines were compiled, the nature of the clinical trials that were included or how these guidelines differ from those presented in 2004.
There was no mention of the costs of aspirin, but those costs are common knowledge.
Although this story did a comprehensive job of reporting the recommendations presented in the guidelines, it did not quantify the benefits to be obtained from the various means mentioned for lowering cardiovascular disease risk. While this is somewhat understandable because of the number of recommendations mentioned and space constraints, there did not appear to be any attempt to estimate the risk reduction to be gained from the various recommendations to better enable a reader to determine how to prioritize their efforts.
Harms of aspirin use, such as bleeding requiring transfusion and problems for individuals with uncontrolled hypertension were mentioned.
The evidence presented in this story derived from the newly published guidelines from the American Heart Association for heart disease prevention in women. The story did not mention how the guidelines were compiled, the nature of the clinical trials that were included or how these guidelines differ from those presented in 2004.
The story was clear about the guidelines' strong recommendation for daily aspirin intake for women at high risk. The story stated, "All other women should consider 81 mg. of aspirin daily", but then went on to say that this was controversial. The guidelines, however were clear, stating that "Routine use of aspirin in lower-risk women is not recommended pending the results of ongoing trials".
The story sensationalizes the incidence of heart disease and stroke by casting them as something nearly all American women are in danger of. While it is true that heart disease and stroke combine to be the most common cause of death of US women, the story failed to point out that although the same is true for men, women die, on average at older ages.
This is not to say that women ought not take their cardiovascular risk seriously, but to be most helpful to the reader, that risk needs to be placed in an understandable context.
The story included quotes from two of the American Heart Association guideline authors and several additional experts in the field without overt ties to the new recommendations.
The story included a comprehensive list of things that women can do to lower their risk of cardiovascular disease.
The story mentions that aspirin is available at drug stores.
This story reported on a set of guidelines about cardiovascular disease prevention in women; similar guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in men have been presented. It neglected to mention that this is an update of the guidelines issued in 2004 and failed to highlight what is new.
It is unlikely that this piece relied solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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