The story describes the use of adult stem cells to help control type 1 diabetes. The story provides absolute benefits (with some cautionary statements that these are preliminary) found in this small trial in 15 patients. However, the story gives no information about what type of study these results are based on (randomized trial or other), and while it does point out some of the study limitations, like study size and length of follow-up, it isn't entirely clear what this should mean to viewers. The story also does not mention any harms of the new treatment, and given that it is described as "gentle chemotherapy," it's hard to believe there would be no side effects or harms. And with the short follow-up, it isn't clear what long-term harms this may have.
The story doesn't mention costs of this new treatment.
The story does quantify benefits, e.g. 13 out of 15 patients were able to stop taking insulin. And even though these results look promising at first glance, the story provides cautionary statements that these are just preliminary results.
The story does not mention any harms of the new treatment whatsover, including no mention of how serious these harms were or how frequently they occurred.
The story does not state what the evidence is for the findings, e.g. a randomized trial or something else. The story does discuss some limitations, such as the small number of people in the study and the relatively short follow-up length. But if a network is going to report on a trial in only 15 patients, it should provide a better sense of the quality of the evidence.
The story points out the estimated number of people with this type of diabetes (type 1) and contrasts that with how many people have type 2 (significantly more), giving viewers a sense that this treatment may not help the majority of people with diabetes.
The story quotes two experts – one of whom was apparently not involved in the study.
The current standard therapy for type 1 diabetics is briefly discussed, e.g. daily insulin injections.
The story tells readers that the new treatment is still experimental and this treatment appears to have been used for the first time in a recent research study. One physician is quoted saying the idea "is not ready for prime time" so viewers should know they can not turn to their local doctor to have this treatment.
The story mentions this is the first time this treatment (adult stem cells) has been used to control type 1 diabetes (although the story states adult stem cells have been used to treat leukemia).
Since the story quoted two expert sources – and one of them was apparently not involved in the research – it is safe to assume the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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