This is a story about a potential new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease–although the story sensationalizes mouse research to a degree we don’t see often at HealthNewsReview.org.
These errors seem to stem from an over-reliance on a news release and a lack of critical thinking about the qualify of the evidence from a University of Manchester study. The story could lead readers to think that a cure for Alzheimer’s is imminent, saying in the first sentence, “Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, can be fully cured with an anti-inflammatory drug commonly used for period pain.”
The facts show that the truth is far from what is described. The research was highly experimental, only a proof-of concept, and performed on a tiny number of genetically altered mice.
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of memory loss and dementia in the U.S., affecting millions of people. It is a disease many fear, and it appears to be getting worse at a rate that is faster than can be merely explained away by the aging of the population. News stories that promise way more than the research actually delivers is not only disappointing to readers, it erodes trust.
Costs don’t rate a mention in the story. The drug in question requires a prescription in the United States and is expensive, ranging between $111 and $400 for a 30-day course of treatment.
Given the over-the-top headline and first sentence, we would have expected to see at least a little in the way of quantification of the benefits in mice. The story provides no numbers, though. The story says, “Researchers observed that memory loss was fully reversed to the levels seen in mice without Alzheimer’s.”
But even if the story had provided specific study findings on benefits, this was a mouse study–known as a pre-clinical trial. Any benefits measured in mice is far too premature to make any extrapolative statements to people.
While the story does allude to harms, there are two problems. First, we are troubled that the explanation was actually taken directly from the news release about the study. Second, we feel that it was too vague and not explored in any meaningful way. The story says only, “they also warned that these ‘drugs are not without side effects and should not be taken for Alzheimer’s disease at this stage–studies in people are needed first.'” What are the side effects? We’re not told.
This is perhaps the biggest failing of the piece. The article makes no mention of multiple areas that should give readers pause:
The study, which is available for free online, is complex and would be hard even for other researchers to understand.
There are no independent sources in the story.
The story mentions, near the top, “no drug medications can successfully treat chronic neurodegenerative disease, but certain medicines can help alleviate symptoms or slow down the progression.” This barest of nods toward alternatives earns it a just-passing Satisfactory rating.
It says that the drug being studied is “a common Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory Drug (NSAID).” This is true for readers in the UK (where the study originates), so we’ll rate this Satisfactory. However, for readers in the U.S. (Medical Daily is an American-owned news site), this is not the case, and it would have been helpful to explain the drug is available by prescription in the U.S., though it is not commonly used.
There is a discussion about how this class of drugs may be developed as “a class of existing drugs that are likely to treat Alzheimer’s.”
“Likely” is probably a stretch here, but certainly there seems to be an effort underway to investigate the use of known drugs and “re-purpose” them. So there is some discussion of novelty here.
The story has no independent sources, and uses language from the news release nearly verbatim in multiple places. For example:
News release: Memory loss was completely reversed back to the levels seen in mice without the disease.
Story: Researchers observed that memory loss was fully reversed to the levels seen in mice without Alzheimer’s.
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