A good example of how to report on potentially promising new interventions while curbing enthusiasm with context and clearly-stated limitations.
Earlier studies have suggested that GHRH and IGF-1 play important roles in the cognitive decline associated with normal aging and in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Recent studies in otherwise healthy older adults have suggested that supplementation with GHRH may improve executive function. This study provides a bit of additional evidence that GHRH may play a role in the treatment of cognitive decline in older adults. But the story is far from clear and this work should be viewed as a preliminary step and not the end of the journey. Because there are no effective drugs to treat mild cognitive impairment, news about any such research demands the kind of careful scrutiny that this story applied
Not only did the story estimate cost – $700 for a single shot – but it put it up high in the 5th paragraph along with caveats about “jumping the gun.”
We wish the story had quantified the test results a bit more explicitly. However, the story got the gist right – and, more importantly, added that “it’s unclear how the test differences will translate into real life.”
As with the benefits, we wish the story had quantified the side effects observed in the study, but since side effects were acknowledged and since the following caveat was included, we’ll give it a satisfactory score on this criterion:
“…more work is needed to gauge the long-term consequences of GHRH injections. It’s possible health problems could show up down the road, and the mental boost may be short-lived.
“Is it going to work in the long run and is it going to be safe? That is still unknown,” said Petersen. “
“Small” study was right up front along with other ample caveats throughout about the limitations of the research at this stage. “It’s too early” and “more work is needed” stands out in the story.
A key independent expert was quoted.
Here’s the relevant adequate section of the story:
“Baker said researchers have failed so far to come up with effective drugs to treat mild cognitive impairment, just as there is no known treatment to stave off the normal memory decline that comes with age.
But recent work by one of Baker’s co-authors hints that nasal sprays with the hormone insulin may have a positive impact on memory in people with Alzheimer’s disease – although that’s far from conclusive yet.”
We wish the story had included even a line about how GHRH is used in medicine right now and whether there’s any knowledge of off-label use for mild cognitive impairment.
We think there could have at least been a line in the story about whether this is groundbreaking research looking at GHRH and mental function or whether there’s been some track record.
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