For every claim there was a caution.
And an independent perspective delivered caveats and limitations that were important for reader understanding.
Additional treatments for MS symptoms are needed and are an important element in the MS Society 2011-2015 strategic response. Stories about treatments for MS symptoms are going to get a lot of attention from patients and families dealing with that diagnosis. This story was careful, cautious and helpful in explaining a very small, very short-term study. Until this published study, only anecdotal evidence of the benefits of marijuana in MS induced spasticity existed. This study provides the first clinical trial evidence.
Somebody had to pay for the marijuana used in the study. And somebody would have to pay something if it were used therapeutically. A cost estimate would have helped. Not everybody knows this stuff.
Many times a story stops at reporting something like “brought some relief.”
This story explained exactly how the study was conducted, what the measurement scale for improvement was, and what was observed on that scale.
And then it carefully itemized limitations of the study.
The story included the important quote, “We can’t say anything about long-term effects.”
And, short term, the story reported that the study found some patients had fatigue and dizziness.
The story carefully itemized several limitations of the research:
The story could have commented more strongly about the small sample size as well.
One independent perspective was used in the story, and it contributed a great deal to the context and balance.
The story explained that the marijuana was used in subjects who had failed to get better with standard medication.
The story explained that some people with MS are already using medical marijuana to treat certain symptoms.
The study briefly referenced past research suggesting that cannabinoid receptors on cells help regulate muscle spasticity.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely 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