This nugget of a story, while nicely written and easy to read, puts too much emphasis on the promise of new findings and not enough on the actual data involved in the study. Research by the University of Alberta in Canada looked at the composition of saliva from three groups of people — Alzheimer’s patients, people with mild cognitive impairment, and those whose mental skills were normal for their age. An analysis of the saliva from these three distinct groups showed specific differences in certain compounds present. The story suggests that the findings could form the basis of “a relatively easy and non-invasive way to determine which people are at higher risk of developing more serious degenerative brain conditions.”
But the story offers few if any specifics about the size or design of the study, its limitations, or the actual results of the investigation. While a competing HealthDay story took pains to point out the tentative nature of the study, this Time piece gives readers a cursory and overly optimistic view of its potential.
Alzheimer’s dementia is a debilitating and increasingly prevalent condition in our aging society. If the described simple, non-invasive screening test is truly effective (which will take much more testing to find out), it could have an enormous impact that is potentially positive if we develop better treatments for Alzheimer’s patients and can take action based on the results. There is also potential for negative impact resulting from false positive and false negative results, and from knowing about a frightening diagnosis without having the ability to do anything about it.
There is no mention in this short story about the potential costs of such a test, if it proved to be viable. Of course, it’s too early to say anything definitive about cost, and offering a specific number might mislead readers by implying that the test is anywhere near ready to be used. But we think the story could have offered some sense of the technology behind the test and whether it’s advanced/expensive or cheap/widely available. Other tests using saliva are in use today and could offer a general comparison point to suggest the costs of a new test.
While the story outlines the potential benefits of such a test in general terms, it does not quantify the results of the study or tell readers how accurate the test was found to be. We think any story about diagnostic testing or screening should discuss the sensitivity and specificity of the test — numbers which tell us about how well the test finds people who actually have the disease and rules out people who don’t have it.
Direct harms from a simple saliva test seem improbable at best, given its non-invasive nature. But the competing HealthDay story pointed out that even a saliva test could produce false positives that could cause real anxiety in patients, something that clearly could harm them. There is also the potential for false negative results, which would falsely reassure patients about their status. Even an accurate positive finding could cause harm, since it would inform people about their risk of a future condition without giving them the ability to do much about it.
This story focuses on the findings of a very early study using a small number of participants. But the shortness of this offering — four paragraphs — isn’t sufficient to convey the preliminary nature of the research. A competing HealthDay story offers a lengthy paragraph outlining all the factors that might explain differences in the saliva makeup of the three groups and thereby negate the test’s use for determining Alzheimer’s. That story also emphasizes the tentative nature of the work numerous times. In cases like this, where the research is preliminary and the reporting is cursory, it’s worth questioning whether doing a story at all is worth it.
The story doesn’t engage in disease mongering, but there’s really not enough context about the disease or its impact to justify a Satisfactory rating. We’ll call it Not Applicable.
The story doesn’t offer independent sources and only paraphrases information from the graduate student/principal investigator.
This story focuses solely on research suggesting that a simple saliva test might one day gauge the risk of developing the disease. It doesn’t discuss how Alzheimer’s is currently diagnosed or what risk factors might increase one’s likelihood of developing the disease.
We give credit here for this acknowledgment: “The results aren’t conclusive enough yet for doctors to start using them to distinguish people who are more likely to develop Alzheimer’s.” However, readers overall may get the impression that the test’s clinical usage is coming soon, when that’s not likely the case. We’d be much more comfortable if the story included more information accurately portraying the tentative nature of the findings, findings that might be actually caused by other factors not studied.
The research discussed here is novel in a general sense, but the story doesn’t establish this to a satisfactory degree. A number of previous studies have looked at saliva markers of Alzheimer’s, and there are probably dozens of other blood tests, scans, and other approaches currently in development to address the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. The story does not allude to this research.
We didn’t see evidence that the story relied on this news release about the presentation. However, since it contains such limited information, it’s hard to determine how it was produced. We’ll rule it Not Applicable.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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