This story was about an experimental approach using adult stem cells to limit heart damage after a heart attack.
The story explained that the evidence came from a small phase I clinical trial, the results of which were presented at the American College of Cardiology annual meeting. It should have mentioned some of the problems with trying to reach conclusions about research that has not yet been peer reviewed, with results that have not been replicated. (See primer on "News From Scientific Meetings.")
The story included quotes that described the results of the study (which was sponsored by the company that developed the approach) as 'really quite spectacular', 'more encouraging than anything we've seen', and that those involved in the study were 'blown away' when they saw the outcome. But all of the sources interviewed were connected to the trial in some way, and had a vested interest in reporting positive findings. Again, especially since the work has not been peer-reviewed, it would have been helpful to have included comments from independent experts.
The story didn't discuss costs of the approach. It also didn't mention any harms observed or even comment about an absence of observed harms if this was the case.
There was no estimate for the cost of this experimental approach.
The story included evidence that fewer patients receiving the treatment had arrhythmias in the months after their heart attack than those who received the placebo.
The story mentioned that those receiving the treatment were able to walk farther and had better heart muscle than the placebo group, though it did not provide any estimates of the magnitude for these differences
The story included no mention of any harms observed or even a comment about an absence of observed harms if this was the case.
The story explained that the evidence came from a small phase I clinical trial, the results of which were presented at the American College of Cardiology annual meeting. It should have mentioned some of the problems with trying to reach conclusions about research that has not yet been peer reviewed, with results that have not been replicated.
This story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story included comments from four different stem cell researchers, but all were connected with the research in some way. It would have been better to get an independent perspective from someone not involved in this research. In addition, there were no caveats given about results that have only been presented at a meeting, have not yet been peer reviewed, and have not been replicated.
While presenting information about decreased numbers of patients experiencing arrhythmias and better capacity to walk as a result of the experimental approach, the story did not discuss how this new experimental approach compares with existing treatment options.
Although the story called the stem cell approach "an experimental treatment" and mentioned that the information presented came from a phase I clinical trial conducted with a small group of patients, it did not explain that this treatment is not widely available.
This is a novel treatment and was presented as such.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press 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