The “Quick Study” format is useful because it clearly lays out the nature of the study, the potential importance of the findings, and the limitations. With just a few more sentences, the story could have provided enough context to give readers a fuller picture of this important research.
Alzheimer’s disease is a devastating condition for patients and their loved ones. Currently approved treatments do little more than slow down the progression for short periods of time. New treatments are desperately needed. Insulin delivered through the nose has been previously studied, but the use of the long-acting version of insulin reported on here is new. Though the study shows some benefit, it isn’t clear how the medicine works to improve memory. Nor is it clear how long those benefits will last or whether they can be delivered with adequate safety. Until larger studies with longer follow-up are performed, this novel treatment will remain in the research world.
Neither this story nor a competing story by Fox News discussed costs. The product being studied, Levemir delivered through Kurve Technology’s ViaNase, has been written about for about a decade, and so cost information could have been found and reported.
Neither this story nor a competing story by Fox News actually quantified the benefits adequately. At least the Fox News story talked about the people who took the nasal spray experiencing a “25 percent” improvement in mental function. In both cases, it would have been good to explain how many people in the study saw how much improvement in both groups.
The story gets credit here for pointing out, as part of the explanation of the study’s limitations, that a longer and larger study would be necessary to determine whether the drug is safe as a treatment for Alzheimer’s. The competing Fox News story simply took the lead researcher’s word for it that there were no harmful side effects.
That improvement aside, the story still had a responsibility to report on the harms that were documented in the study, which included dizziness and congestion. The story didn’t do that, which is why we’re rating it unsatisfactory here.
Terrific job making the study’s limitations clear. First, the story labels these in bold type as CAVEATS. It then picks off all the main limitations: small size, short time span, and that “a larger and longer study would be needed to adequately test effectiveness and safety.” We also appreciate the closing disclaimer: “conclusive evidence about a treatment’s effectiveness is rarely found in a single study. Anyone considering changing or beginning treatment of any kind should consult with a physician.”
There is no disease mongering here. And the story does a good job explaining the connection between Alzheimer’s and memory loss.
We give the story credit for recommending that readers go to two independent sources for more information about dementia: ninds.nih.gov/disorders and www.familydoctor.org. However, we think that all health stories could use some perspective — in the text of the actual story — from an independent expert. We realize that a 300-word column like this may never meet our standard here. But we’ll continue hold out for that ideal.
Neither this story nor a competing story by Fox News compared the drug to other FDA-approved therapies for Alzheimer’s or other insulin therapies. The news release actually explains that other therapies are out there for comparison, saying, “Previous trials had shown promising effects of nasally-administered insulin for adults with AD and MCI, but this study was the first to use insulin detemir, whose effects are longer-lasting than those of ‘regular’ insulin.”
Neither this story nor the competing story by Fox News explained that this nasally administered form of insulin is currently only available as part of research studies. The story also offers no informed opinion regarding how long additional testing might take.
The story does not address the novelty of this research. Nasal insulin has previously been studied for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. The current study used a longer-acting form of insulin than was used in previous research.
The story does not rely excessively on this news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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