Considering how preliminary this trial is, there’s not a lot of news value to lay readers who are hoping for new asthma treatment options.
Details that patients care about–such as the incredibly steep price tag and potential for adverse effects–didn’t get much attention in this story.
Expert sources and a review of the scientific literature ground the story and help balance the anecdotes.
There is much more evidence showing CPAP is proven to improve the very same outcomes for which the new device is touted. This point should have been included
The story also doesn’t include any sourcing, nor how this work fits into the existing body of research on aspirin and cancer.
The story reminds readers that the study conclusions are “preliminary,” an important cautionary note, but then leads with rather strong causal statement.
Seeing is not believing when it comes to a medical intervention; many factors, including a placebo effect, can make an intervention seem like it works when it doesn’t.
The story does a lot of things well–it adequately quantifies the benefits from use of the drug, as well as outlining the potential risks associated with it.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
5 sneaky tactics Big Pharma uses on drug websites: https://t.co/PpLHQ2l3El
Before you trade wine (bad for you!) for chocolate (good for you!), read @HealthNewsRevu: https://t.co/C3OMDL05pB + https://t.co/0jmOcO0KoF
Tips for Understanding Studies
