April 13, 2016 Read Original Story

An array of sources make this STAT story on aspirin task force recommendations very strong

Reviewed By

Rating

Experts debate: Do healthy people need an aspirin a day?

Our Review Summary

This is a detailed report on the recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on the use of aspirin, one of two stories we reviewed on this topic (here’s the other, from CBSNEWS.com). It is a relatively thorough discussion, with an impressive array of physicians parsing the guidelines and informing us who is likely, or not likely to benefit from taking aspirin, the likelihood of benefit and harm, and the importance of gauging one’s personal set of risk factors before deciding if a daily aspirin is right for you.

One issue this story could have made clearer is the quality of evidence behind the task force’s recommendations. Some important limitations are discussed, but not in a direct way. This issue–the relatively thin evidence behind the recommendations–made the rounds among physician news sites, and ideally would have been emphasized more in general news coverage.

Why This Matters

Aspirin is widely prescribed or purchased over-the-counter for aches and pains, and increasingly used to prevent cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, over the long term. Better public understanding of the benefits and harms of aspirin, and clearer delineations of the science around who is likely to benefit from taking it, are all likely to have an important health impact.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

It is universally known that aspirin is cheap, sold widely and in a manner where its cost will not be a barrier to consumption, so the cost information is not necessary to reiterate in this report.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

One of the commentators, Charles Hennekens, gave an excellent summary of the quantified benefits citing both absolute and relative numbers.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

As above, Hennekens gave a description of the absolute harms involved in aspirin, particularly related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and several of the other sources also discussed this important harm.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

While it could have been discussed in a more direct way, some important limitations to the quality of the evidence in the task force’s recommendation can be inferred by various statements from the sources in this story. For example, Hennekens states that “the totality of the evidence is incomplete,” and that the evidence in the task force report hasn’t advanced much since the 1980s. He also cites ongoing studies that will hopefully fill in some of these gaps. Other sources in the story discuss how complex the evidence is.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no evidence of disease mongering here, as cardiovascular disease is the top cause of death in the U.S. for both women and men.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

We applaud the breadth of sourcing in this piece. Readers are told that Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, is the vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force, and she weighs in with her assessment. Other physicians, however, seem independent of the USPSTF and are unlikely to be financially conflicted with the manufacturers of aspirin.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

Alternatives are mentioned (smoking cessation, eating a balanced diet, getting sufficient exercise), and that’s sufficient to rate as Satisfactory. The piece would be strengthened by comparing the relative benefits of the other options.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

It’s pretty clear that aspirin is ubiquitous and sold almost everywhere as an over-the-counter drug, so we’ll rate this one N/A. This story, and the other we reviewed, might have benefited from mentioning that the drug has a generic name (known as ASA or acetylsalicylic acid). Generic versions of the drug do exist, are likely cheaper than the brand name, and equally effective.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

There are no spurious claims made here about the “novelty” of aspirin’s effects, or the recommendations in the report, yet maybe a bit of confusion when one of the physicians said that aspirin’s effects on colorectal cancer were “provocative.” What is a reader to make of that relatively unhelpful statement? This could have been clearer.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

With a full slate of outside observers commenting on this study, it is unlikely to be overly reliant on any news release.

Total Score: 8 of 8 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.