Our Review Summary
Adherence to medication is a major hurdle in the management of osteoporosis. Because the oral medications are difficult to tolerate, many women stop taking them. However, there are now several different options that do not require a daily dose. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the use of a once-a-year intravenous treatment. This story reports on the results of that study.
The story adequately describes the harms of treatment and accurately represents the novelty of the treatment.
However, the story does not mention the availability of the treatment, does not describe the costs, does not adequately represent the strength of the available evidence, does not quote an independent source, and does not adequately cover the treatment alternatives.
Most importantly, the story quantifies benefits in relative terms only. The story should have provided context for these numbers by showing the actual rates of fracture in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the story only presents one outcome, vertebral fractures. These are fractures found on x-rays that only sometimes cause symptoms. Treatment reduced the chance of vertebral fractures from 10.9% to 3.3%. Equally important would be risk of hip fracture, which can substantially impact an individual's quality of life. In this study, the risk of hip fracture was reduced from 2.5% over 3 years in the placebo group to 1.4% in the treatment group.
The story only ran 176 words. If they'd given the reporter a little more space, perhaps these important missing elements would have been addressed. But they didn't, and they weren't.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention costs of the treatment.
Not Satisfactory
The story quantifies benefits in relative terms only. The story should have provided context for these numbers by showing the actual rates of fracture in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the story only presents one outcome, vertebral fractures. These are fractures found on x-rays that only sometimes cause symptoms. Treatment reduced the chance of vertebral fractures from 10.9% to 3.3%. Equally important would be risk of hip fracture, which can substantially impact an individual's quality of life. In this study, the risk of hip fracture was reduced from 2.5% over 3 years in the placebo group to 1.4% in the treatment group.
Satisfactory
The story mentions the most serious harm of the treatment, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation. Other risks include post-infusion reactions, including fever, headache, flu-like symptoms and joint pain.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story mentions the recent trial, it does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence to support the use of the IV drug.
Satisfactory
The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not quote any independent researchers or clinicians who could comment on the impact of this new development on the management of osteoporosis.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story does mention Fosomax and Actonel, this is not sufficient information on the alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches. The story should have also mentioned calcium supplements, physical activity, estrogens, and smoking and alcohol cessation as alternatives.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention if the intravenous (IV) zoledronic acid (Reclast) has been FDA approved or whether it is available or not.
Satisfactory
The story does point out that this treatment represents a novel way of treating osteoporosis.
Not Applicable
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although the only source is the author of a study in a journal.
Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory
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