The story provides the reader with a comparison of anti-depressants' effectiveness and the risk of suicidal thoughts or actions in young children and teenagers. The story describes results of a recently published meta-analysis and explains why the results of this new study may differ from data on which an FDA warning of increased suicidal behavior in children taking anti-depressants was based. The story provides the number needed to harm as well as other quantitative information on the benefits of anti-depressants for particular mood disorders.
The story focuses on only one potential harm of treatment, i.e. suicide and suicidal ideation. It would have been reasonable to report on other common side effects of these medications (e.g. stomach problems, insomnia, irritability, and mania in some children). While these medications are considered safe – even with the FDA warning – there is little long-term data on their safety in these groups.
The original version of the story by the Associated Press included several items left out by the Cleveland Plain Dealer when it picked up the story:
The story interviews one of the lead authors of the study. However we are not told if he has financial ties with the pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressant medications. The JAMA article gives conflict of interest info and there are potential conflicts that are not reported in the news story. Other clinical and patient perspectives are needed to provide balance to the story and as a means of discussing this treatment option for children and teenagers.
The cost of anti-depressant medications are not mentioned. Cost of generic prozac is about $16/month. Branded versions are about $80-120/month
The story does provide absolute data on the positive benefit of these medication for several mood disorders. The story also presents the number needed to harm. The story presents an adequate risk to benefit comparison by providing the data.
The story focuses on only one potential harm of treatment, i.e. suicide and suicidal ideation. The story does not list the side effects of these medications (stomach problems, insomnia, irritability, and mania in some children). While these medications are considered safe – even with the FDA warning – there is little long-term data on their safety in these groups.
The story gives an overview of the meta-analysis and explains why the results of this new study may differ from earlier studies on which an FDA warning of increased suicidal behavior in children taking anti-depressants were based. The story provides the number needed to harm as well as other quantitative information on the benefits and risks of anti-depressants as they relate to improved mood and risk of suicidal thoughts and feelings.
The story simply reports the results of a review of many studies looking at suicidal behavior in children and adults who were prescribed anti-depressant medications. The story would be improved by giving information on frequency of the conditions discussed, but there is NO disease mongering
The story interviews one of the lead authors of the study. However we are not told if he has financial ties with the pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressant medications. The JAMA article gives conflict of interest info and there are potential conflicts that are not reported in the news story.
The version of the story we reviewed was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. This version does not provide other treatment options for children and teenagers who have anxiety disorders and/or depression such as psychotherapy, especially cognitive behavioral therapy. But the original AP story did include an interview with a Duke expert, unconnected with the JAMA study, who commented on cognitive behavioral therapy.
The story does not provide information about the availability of anti-depressant medications for young children and teenagers. However, since this story deals with possible risks from these drugs, this criterion seems less important in this story.
Anti-depressant medication treatment is children is a relatively new phenomenon. The story does not mention this. However, the focus of the story was to provide a more up-to-date report of the risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in children taking these medications. Data from this recent systemic review suggest the risk is still there, but not as great as previously thought.
The original AP story had interviews with two experts, one of them not connected with the research. So it's safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release. But the Cleveland Plain Dealer, in which we picked up the story, cut out the quotes from this independent source.
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