The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here.
In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits — which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients.
We also reviewed two news releases related to the research:
Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don’t want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.
Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles.
This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefits–which is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a good–and thorough–job of describing the benefits in qualitative terms.
That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic “Satisfactory” rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source — particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story.
The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done.
The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: “But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials — the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike.” This is the sort of thing we like to see.
However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was “limited blinding” — how did that possibly affect the outcomes?
No disease mongering here.
However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer.
The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization’s long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert.
However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which saw in some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece.
The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions.
The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: “[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use.” Well done.
This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That’s enough to earn it a “Satisfactory” rating. However, the story doesn’t mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Even when stories get the facts right, they often fail to provide crucial context and caveats that would help audiences make sense of the news — or lack thereof, says @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/b7YO2fYt0a
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
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