This story – about whether aspirin can prevent Alzheimer’s disease – only ran about 210 words. It could have used more space to clear up the confusion it causes in reviewing the evidence. The results of the most recent research on the topic, though conducted as a randomized clincial trial, were disregarded in favor of the more appealing result – i.e. that a common, readily available product can be used to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
It would have been far more useful to explain about why there may be discrepancies between research studies, how a reader might go about assessing the information, and, when there are differences in outcomes, how one can make a decision about the options.
The story stated that “people who took a low dose of aspirin every day for several years reduced their risk of developing Alzheimer’s by 13 percent.” However the study itself reported that use of low-dose aspirin did not result in a significant reduction in Alzheimer’s disease. Thus the story did not accurately report on these results and compounded this with its concluding statement.
The story only listed stomach bleeding and ulcers as side effects of aspirin. The story also failed to include information about often it occurs. However as this is a story about prevention of Alzheimer’s disease, it should have mentioned that the bleeding risks associated with aspirin use increase with age.
No experts were quoted; some expert help was needed on this story.
There was no information about the cost of treatment, though, again, knowledge about this product, including its cost, is widespread.
The story stated that “people who took a low dose of aspirin every day for several years reduced their risk of developing Alzheimer’s by 13 percent.” However the study itself reported that use of low-dose aspirin did not result in a significant reduction in Alzheimer’s disease. Thus the story did not accurately report on these results and compounded this with its concluding statement.
The story only listed stomach bleeding and ulcers as side effects of aspirin. The story also failed to include information about often it occurs. However as this is a story about prevention of Alzheimer’s disease, it should have mentioned that the bleeding risks associated with aspirin use increase with age.
The evidence presented in this story was confusing. Although the most recent research was a randomized clincial trial, the writer chose to disregard these results in favor of epidemiologic study which found that HIGH doses of aspirin were associated with a statistically lower prevelance of Alzheimer’s disease. This study found no significant association with low dose aspirin; further, the conclusion reads as follows: “Aspirin might protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but controlled trials are warranted.” So it is presumptuous for the journalist to conclude “Regular aspirin use may lower the risk of Alzheimer’s.”
There was no overt disease mongering in this story.
This story did not appear to contain material obtained from individuals with expertise in this area. No one was quoted.
There was no discussion of any other approaches under investigation for prevention or delay of Alzheimer’s disease.
Although the story did not explicitly state that low-dose aspirin is a readily available, over-the-counter product, this information is common knowledge.
The story accurately explained that studies examining whether aspirin can reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease have been conducted over a period of time.
This story appears to have drawn on the results from different research studies and does not appear to rely exclusively 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