Our Review Summary
A very short story explains how an old drug for pain, dicloflenac, might have some new uses in cancer patients. But we found the story lacked a basic explanation of how the researchers measured the benefits of the drug. It also did not include any original reporting and appeared mostly to be a rewrite of the original news release. We understand that short stories – this was 265 words – can’t have everything. But this story could have done a better job.
Why This Matters
The idea of re-purposing existing drugs, already widely used and cheap, is a great potential resource for chronic diseases, including cancer. But this extremely short story does not meet most of our standards for explaining research. The article referenced in the story cites animal studies and studies on cell lines that, while promising, are a long way from the evidence needed to make claims about cancer-fighting potential. There are four clinical studies in progress; this all could have been mentioned.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story calls the drug, which has already been on the market for other uses, “affordable.” We wish the story had provided an actual price, and also some acknowledgment that if this drug is found to have anti-cancer properties, the price will likely go up.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not quantify at all. It barely describes the “cancer-fighting properties” of this compound, dicloflenac. The story says the compound “may improve the immune system, the effectiveness of chemotherapy and radiation and the development of blood vessels.”
Although the story is short, we think more detail should have been given on what was measured in these small, preliminary studies. Just one example of some numbers, such as how immune response was measured, would have helped.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not mention harms. Like all medications, dicloflenac use carries risks and the story should have mentioned some of the most important ones.
Not Satisfactory
The story was so brief, and based on such a short news release, that a reader is not able to judge the quality of the evidence. The story could have noted, for example, that there are no human clinical studies, only animal-based basic science research. That’s a flimsy basis upon which to state that the drug “could be the next cancer treatment.”
Satisfactory
There was no disease mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not show any reporting separate from the news release information. It’s nearly a word for word reproduction of the release.
Not Applicable
The story does not discuss any alternatives. But since the potential universe of alternatives is so broad (basically all experimental cancer treatments), we’ll rate this Not Applicable.
Satisfactory
The drug is already widely available and the story makes this clear. However, it’s worth noting that we don’t know what doses might be used for cancer treatment, if it proves useful.
Satisfactory
The story is clear that this study of dicloflenac is not the first one to look for other uses, beyond those already known.
Not Satisfactory
The story appears to rely just on the news release. This quote – for example – is taken directly from the release. The story does not quote anyone independent of the release.
“It’s still somewhat surprising that there is still so much we don’t understand about how many of the standard drugs we use every day, like diclofenac, work,” says study author Pan Pantziarka, PhD, member of the ReDO project and the Anticancer Fund, in a press release.
Kudos to the story for acknowledging the source of the quote, but without any other reporting we can’t award a Satisfactory rating here.
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