Do you write news releases? And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
The story does express some limitations of the study findings, which we appreciate.
The story also did not mention that the author acknowledged being a paid “advocate” for pain patients, which could present a conflict of interest.
The story doesn’t address numerous limitations with this research and failed to scrutinize the quality of the evidence.
The story takes the company’s word for the announced benefit without evaluating the claims and fails to address cost or side effects in any way, despite the fact that both drugs are already on the market.
The story included multiple independent sources to provide perspective, and it included a few key details about the study.
Also, a host of potential harms from weight-loss drugs went mostly unmentioned.
The specifics of the study are glossed over, no connection is made between brain activity and clinical symptoms or outcomes, and there’s no mention of cost or potential harms.
Also, discussion of carotid artery screening of people who do not have symptoms is mixed up with the reporter’s experience with testing done in order to diagnose the cause of his symptoms.
On the upside, the story does include the side effects associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation.
While targeted therapies are an important area of research, the public shouldn’t be oversold on early-phase trials or led to think that tumor shrinkage portends a cure.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Weekly Digest [link corrections] - What did journalists overlook about the Apple Watch 'heart monitor'? - https://t.co/erEOxoNNfl
Weekly Digest--What did journalists overlook about the Apple Watch 'heart monitor?' - https://t.co/uuO29BeEij
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims
