The story was clear about what the new study suggests but what the limitations of the evidence are. As a result, readers get a clear message – clearer than in the competing WebMD story.
We can begin to do a better job of educating news consumers about the quality of evidence – what studies show and what they may not show. This story does a good job of making the distinctions clear.
The cost of aspirin is not in question.
Much better than the competing WebMD story, this story appropriately stated:
“People who said they took daily aspirin – whether ‘baby’ or adult strength – had a 16-percent lower risk of dying from cancer than non-users overall, Thun and his colleagues found.
For men, the difference came out to 103 fewer cancer deaths a year per 100,000 people; for women, the number was 42.”
The story acknowledged side effects such as serious stomach bleeds and pointed out that this study didn’t look at overall death rates or side effects.
This story put “considerable limitations” in the second sentence. It also later described “detection bias.” And it clearly pointed out:
“Because the study wasn’t a clinical trial, it’s hard to know if the findings can be chalked up to aspirin or if something else is at play.”
We wish the story hadn’t used the term “the effect was strongest” since this clearly suggests cause-and-effect was established by the study, which was not the case. But because the caveats about limitations were early, strong, and throughout, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The input from independent expert Dr. Kausik Ray was important. And it pointed out the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force discouraging the use of aspirin “to stave off colorectal cancer in people at average risk for the disease.”
The WebMD story did a better job on this simply by including one line about “other strategies will also reduce the risk of cancer” – regular physical activity, healthy weight, not smoking.
The availability of aspirin is not in question.
The story noted other research in this field:
“Medical guidelines in the U.S. already urge people to take low doses of aspirin to prevent heart disease if the predicted benefits outweigh the risk of side effects, or if they have already suffered a heart attack.
Whether those recommendations should be broadened to include cancer prevention is still up in the air, however.
Earlier this year, an analysis of previous clinical trials showed that people on aspirin were less likely to die of cancer than those not on the medication, with a 37-percent drop in cancer deaths observed from five years onwards.
The new report, published Friday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is based on real-life observations instead of experiments. It includes a decade’s worth of data from more than 100,000 men and women in the U.S., most over 60 and all of them non-smokers.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
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