Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Story

U.S. News churns out puff piece on medical marijuana app research

Rating

2 Star

Study: Medical Marijuana Relieves Range of Symptoms With No Serious Side Effects

Our Review Summary

This story drew largely from a news release about two studies purporting to show sweeping health benefits of marijuana, based on user-reported data from the Releaf phone app.

There was no critical examination of the underlying evidence, and this story is basically providing free marketing for all sorts of things the authors of the study have financial stakes in.

 

Why This Matters

Medical marijuana is becoming big business that’s thriving on big buzz. Journalists need to scrutinize the evidence behind claims of medical benefits — especially as the cannabis industry attempts to sway public perception in advance of scientific research that will determine whether marijuana does help with certain diseases. This story doesn’t do that.

 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There’s no discussion about the cost of marijuana.

Also, the story doesn’t mention that the app is free to users.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story gave some numbers, but provided inadequate data on the quantity of reported benefits for any specific condition.

For example, it reported that 94% of users with medical problems reported a reduction in their symptoms, and users suffering from 27 health conditions “with symptoms ranging from seizures to depression reported a mean reduction in symptoms of 2.8 to 4.6 points on a zero to 10 point scale after consuming cannabis in various forms.”

Only for insomnia did it say that users experienced a “reduction of symptom severity of an average 4.5 points on a zero to 10 point scale.” But even for that condition, no data was provided on how severe the symptoms were on average, and what proportion of people actually saw an improvement.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t mention any potential harms of medical marijuana. Instead, it said the use of marijuana “was associated with non-serious side effects.”

In reality, medical marijuana is known to have side effects that can range from minor to serious. These include dizziness, dry mouth, disorientation and confusion, among others. The research in this area is not extensive, particularly related to harms associated with long-term use.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t address numerous limitations with this research and failed to scrutinize the quality of the evidence. Caveats–such as the lack of a control group–were easily found in the study, and these should have been discussed in the story:

“The study was limited primarily by the lack of a control group, e.g., non-cannabis users with the same symptom using a mobile device to indicate their immediate symptom intensity levels. There is also the potential confound of user-selection bias and exclusion of users that failed to complete sessions or even use the Releaf AppTM due to a lack of symptom relief or negative side effects. (It is possible that selection bias could have worked in the opposite way, excluding patients that are already satisfied with their cannabis choices and therefore choose not to use the software app).”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story doesn’t engage in disease-mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story used no independent sources and omitted a significant conflict of interest. While the story said the app was “developed by several of the studies’ authors,” it didn’t disclose that the app operates in a partnership with a cannabis advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, which is funded by various businesses in the marijuana industry.

The maker of the app also has “partnered” with dispensaries to use the data as a “feedback loop” for the marijuana industry.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There was no serious discussion of other available treatments, even those that have been proven to work in rigorous trials.

Rather, the story parroted the news release’s dismissal of prescription drugs as having “negative side effects” and relayed a baseless quote from a study author that claimed marijuana “could systematically replace multi-billion dollar medication industries.”

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t explain where medical marijuana is legal and where it isn’t, or whether a prescription is needed to get it.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story described the app as “the largest repository of user-entered information on the consumption and effect of cannabis use in the United States,” with almost 100,000 entries. It’s not clear if the reporter confirmed this or not.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story drew largely from a University of New Mexico news release, but also took some data from the studies. It just barely earns a satisfactory rating here.

 

Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.