Media Doctor Canada Featured Articles

Early prostate cancer growth may slow with drug (rated 2.5 stars)

This is a report features a study using dutasteride to prevent the progression of cancers. Despite significant information gaps, reports like this one may cause men (diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer) to jump at the chance to take this drug.

It is important to recognize that the vast majority of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will not die from it. Since this group of men is a key population for dutasteride, it can be hard to decipher the benefit of the treatment. How accurate is your measurement of 'delay of death' when death is not likely to happen?

The article suggests that the drug has the potential to make "watchful waiting" safer. However, this claim is not supported by evidence, especially in light of the lack of adverse events data presented in the report. In addition, we don't learn much about the study design, and are provided little explanation for the following statement: "prostate cancer got worse in 38 per cent of men taking Avodart and 49 per cent of those on dummy pills".

Although there were some significant gaps in this reporting, it should be noted that this did a good job reporting the ties between the various spokespeople and the research funder/manufacturer of the drug.

Antidepressant appears to ease hot flashes (rated 1.5 stars)

This was a very poor report of the use of an antidepressant in treating hot flashes- a common symptom of menopause. The article discusses the randomized trial of escitalopram (Lexapro) which showed a 12% relative difference between the hot flashes experienced by women in the drug and placebo groups. In addition to solely presenting the relative reduction numbers, the article missed a few key points that leave the reader woefully in the dark. There is no mention of treatment availability in Canada, treatment cost and/or alternative treatments options (although they do mention the other antidepressants).

However, the most egregious error of this report is the failure to mention the side effects or potential serious adverse effects associated with antidepressants (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, gastrointestinal upset etc.). Having a spokesperson from outside the research, who could comment critically on these findings and the overall premise of treating menopausal women with antidepressants, would have generated a more balanced story rather than a promotional piece for the drug in question.

A daily Aspirin could help fight some cancers (rated 2 stars)

The news article highlights an important study around the use of low-dose aspirin in cancer prevention. The main drawback of this report is that it only provides readers with relative risk reduction numbers such as 30%, 35% and 40% for various types of cancer (lung, gastrointestinal, and colorectal, respectively). These numbers all sound impressive, but in reality, the benefit to the individual is much smaller. The original research (published in the Lancet) indicates that the absolute risk reductions values were around 1.5% for bowel cancer-that is a reduction from 4% to 2.5% when taking low-dose aspirin everyday.

The article includes another misleading bit of information when it says, "Aspirin, the brand name of the drug acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), is already known to prevent heart attacks or strokes in some people, particularly those who are at increased risk or have already suffered one, because it makes blood less likely to clot." A quick look on Google Scholar would have shown that this Aspirin hypothesis has been questioned in published medical research. In fact, a study published in March 2010 (Journal of the American Medical Association) involved almost 30,000 participants (men and women) and found that aspirin had no significant effect on heart attacks and strokes in low-risk populations.

While this story did mention some of the harms associated with taking daily doses of Aspirin, it did not discuss alternative prevention methods; there are many other things that people can do to prevent cancer (exercise, better nutrition, etc.) and including a brief discussion of these options would have improved the quality of this story.

New cholesterol drug data 'spectacular': MD (rated 3 stars)

While this article did include some elements of a thorough and accurate news piece, it is important to recognize that there was also some room for improvement. First and foremost, the story may have stirred some confusion with seemingly contradictory statements. At the start of the article, we read that "Anacetrapib, described as the first drug of its kind, helps keep fat particles attached to HDL, which carries them in the bloodstream to the liver to be disposed of." However, later on in the article, we read about torcetrapib, a similar drug developed by Pfizer four years ago and abandoned for safety reasons. So is Anacetrapib really the first of its kind?

There were good caveats related to the fact the drug is still being tested and the fact that the effects were only seen in LDL and HDL changes (not deaths, heart attacks or other heart problems). The article appropriately provides the absolute values for the treatment benefits and also mentions the potential conflicts of interests of the researchers and spokespeople.

It is clear that this article reflects the incredible enthusiasm of the researchers and, despite some really good caveats, this tone may give readers the impression that this new drug is more impressive that it really is. While this new treatment MAY someday change the way we treat certain patients, it is important to remember that this drug is still in its testing phase and that it is far too early to make a case for its success.

Approval of new drug heralds 'momentous' advance in stroke prevention (rated 3 stars)

This was a poor quality article reporting on a major drug trial for a product that may potentially be used by vast numbers of Canadians. While the article did include some useful information for the readers (e.g. treatment cost, availability, treatment options), the lack of quality evidence should ring a few alarm bells. The article did not provide sufficient details about the trial design and only included the relative risk reduction values.

This article committed a common "sin" in that it failed to mention absolute differences in side effects between the two therapies (Pradax versus warfarin). Without this information it is impossible to tell whether (or by how much) the benefits of the new therapy outweigh the risks. In the clinical trial, Pradax was associated with a higher rate of treatment discontinuation (5%), a higher rate of major gastrointestinal reactions (11%) and a higher rate of 'major bleeding'. While we may want to replace warfarin with a safer and easier-to-take drug, the question we must ask is whether the reduction in stroke risk achieved by this new product is worth a higher risk of these seemingly major side effects (gastric bleeds and reactions)?

It is important to remember that the drug has only been approved for patients who have undergone total hip or knee replacement therapy. With articles like this one, you can be sure that patients will clamor for it. We need to await the careful considered assessment of the Common Drug Review before we get excited about this new drug approval.

Flu shot could reduce heart attack risk, study suggests (rated 2.5 stars)

While this story had some positive elements, its most prominent downfall was its quantification of the treatment benefits in relative risk reduction terms.The report states that "the overall reduction over the course of the full season works out to an average reduction of 19 per cent for those who get the shots"- but the question we must ask is: 19% of what? What is the baseline risk of heart attack for people who chose not to get the flu shot?

The story provided little information on the risks associated with the flu vaccine and did not mention other treatments for heart attack prevention. Since the author of study seemed to be prime source of comment, the inclusion of information on potential conflicts of interest as well as comments from additional sources could have strengthened the report.

Statins may help treat prostate cancer (rated 2.5 stars)

This story does something that few do: first, it comments on the quality of the study, and second, it mentions the healthy user effect (the possibility that the statin users were healthier to start with, which is likely).

That being said, the fact that the "convincing" evidence came from a large retrospective trial of mice who had received human prostate cells should not have any men (worried for their prostates) jumping for a prescription of statins. The story misses some key points including quantified risks/harms, as well as potential conflicts of interests for the featured spokespeople. In addition, the benefits mentioned in the story are only reported as relative numbers.

If statins do play a role in inhibiting prostate cancer growth, we need, as the radiation oncologist says, a large randomized trial to prove it. The two studies mentioned here generated preliminary results that should not get anyone too excited.

Epidural may aid a woman's long-term health (rated 2 stars)

One of the main problems in the reporting of this Australian study is that it will be drawn on to support the use of epidurals in childbirth on the basis of the measurement of surrogate markers. The use of surrogate markers, in this case "levator microtrauma", implies pelvic floor injuries however, the story does not indicate whether there is sufficient evidence to link this microtrauma to serious pelvic organ prolapse.

The real concern for pregnant mothers, as inspired by the anecdotes included in the report, is that pelvic floor problems may lead to incontinence or sexual dysfunction- however, we don't know this for sure. The take away message for expectant mothers appears to be: "have an epidural and avoid future incontinence"- a message that is very captivating and very misleading.

The report does not discuss the potential harms associated with epidurals and does not indicate that there were conflicted researchers involved in the study. Furthermore, the inadequate quantification of the treatment benefits makes the study results even less informative; all we know from this report is that women who received an epidural experienced a "lower incidence of tearing". How much lower? We don't know. Did this "lower incidence" result in reduced pelvic organ prolapse? The story isn't clear.

There are many unanswered questions arising from this story and it seems fair to say that readers have been short-changed on important study details.

Alzheimer's predicted by spinal-fluid test (rated 1.5 stars)

This story of the use of cerebrospinal fluid analyses to determine who will (or will not) develop Alzheimer's disease failed to include some pertinent information about this new testing procedure and, as a result, received low ratings.

First and foremost, the evidence presented in this story is vague. It does not clearly outline how the test was studied and provides little detail about the results. We learn from the article that the test is 80% accurate, reliable, noninvasive and inexpensive; however, we are not given any details to substantiate these points. There is no mention of the specificity and selectivity of the test (an essential aspect of understanding how well a screening test performs) and the article does not include information regarding the availability of the test and its potential harms.

In light of this proposed treatment, the hardest question to answer is only skirted around: What can we do if we determine someone is a 'likely' candidate to develop Alzheimer's disease? IS that knowledge going to improve their life in any substantive way or is it just going to cast a shadow on what remains of a person's life?

Readers have been short-changed on the evidence surrounding this new spinal-fluid test and deserve better reporting on such an important issue.

HPV vaccine proves effective against warts, cancer (rated 2 stars)

This is a very disappointing report of an important clinical study that appeared in one of Canada's leading national papers. Unfortunately, it reads as if it came from the press office of the vaccine manufacturer and it lacks important context and details which could influence how people think about the vaccine.

While the article says that "the human papillomavirus vaccine strongly and consistently protects against genital warts - one of the more common sexually transmitted infections - as well as the lesions causing cervical cancer", the article fails to mention the fact that most women are naturally exposed to this virus and that it most often clears from their system without incident. An imbalance in the story can be seen in the fact that the article only provides the relative percentages of vaccine benefits and fails to mention any harms associated with the treatment. This is disappointing given that there have been many post-market reports of serious adverse reactions associated with the HPV vaccine (even some deaths).

In addition to a misleading title (which implies that there are cases where HPV has been proven effective), we readers don't know if the researchers or spokespeople quoted in the article were paid consultants or otherwise had conflicts of interest related to the vaccine manufacturers.

It's interesting to note that while provincial authorities in Canada are recommending the vaccination for girls as young as 13, the research discussed in the report involved about 17,500 women in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia Pacific between the ages of 16 and 26. In addition to finding out more about the lifetime effects of this vaccine, parents should be interested in how well the vaccine works for the population of kids who are currently being told to get it.

Experimental diet pill shows promise, fewer risks (rated 2.5 stars)

This is a story that lacks many details that should be of concern to Canadian readers. What is most prominently missing from this report is information on the safety of this new drug called lorcaserin.

The story describes the drug as the "first truly novel weight-loss pill in a dozen years if it wins approval" and describes the fact that lorcaserin works similar to fen-phen (a drug removed from the market for its effects on the heart). Although the article does indicate that lorcaserin works in a "more selective, and perhaps safer, manner" then fen-phen, the ambiguity of this statement should raise some questions about its safety.

It is important to acknowledge that the scope of medications for weight loss is a huge industry. This story does mention alternative weight-loss treatments such as phentermine, sibutramine (Meridia) and orlistat,(Xenical or Alli); however, it does not compare the effectiveness of lorcaserin to these existing treatment options. In fact, the article adds a significant bias by listing (and emphasizing) the adverse effects of these comparator drugs and by not providing adequate information about the safety of lorcaserin.

Readers of this article need further information about lorcaserin safety, potential conflicts of interest and the availability of this new treatment in Canada. The inclusion of these details would allow readers to be more assured by quotes saying that the drug "looks very safe at this point" (as stated by the study leader).

Drug slows tumour growth in some breast cancers (rated 2 stars)

This is a report of a Lancet-published phase 2 trial of women with advanced breast cancer (BRCA1 genetic mutation) that had not responded to conventional treatment. With a total of 54 women in the trial, half of them got 400 mg of olaparib twice daily and the other half each 100 mg twice a day. According to the article "the heftier dose appeared to work better: a higher percentage of women had tumour shrinkage or slowed tumour growth compared with the lower-dose group. And those on the higher dose survived slightly longer."

This article lacks specific details as to the actual effects of the drug treatment and because there was no control group (receiving no treatment at all), it is hard to say what conclusions can be drawn from the study. The report did include appropriate caveats about the fact the drug is still in development and further research is needed so consumers aren't likely to be clamoring, yet, for such a treatment. What is missing, however, is the much needed discussion of the evidence and an explanation of the fact this is a phase II trial.

Low-dose HRT patches may yield lower stroke risk (rated 1 star)

This article is reporting on a database study comparing the occurrence of strokes in women taking tablet and patch forms of HRT.

The story was missing some important elements and would have benefited from a much clearer explanation of the numbers. For example, readers are told that the study looked at 870,000 women of whom 15,710 suffered a stroke allegedly related to the woman's use of HRT. They are then told that women who took HRT tablets (as opposed to using the HRT patch) increased their stroke risk by 25 to 30 per cent, regardless of whether they were estrogen-only or contained progesterone. In other words, the article suggests that HRT tablets are considered more dangerous than the patch.

But let's be clear here folks: the overall risk of women for a HRT-related stoke was 1.8% (that is 15,710 out of 870,000 participants). If you increase that risk by "30%" your risk goes up from 1.8% to 2.34%. So should this be worrisome? By reporting only the relative risk increases (and not the absolute numbers calculated above), the article is potentially misleading in suggesting that the HRT tablets increase stroke risk by 30%- with articles like this one we need to get accustomed to asking "30% of what?"

In addition to the unclear reporting of the risk reduction number, there was no mention of alternatives to HRT, costs of treatment, other harms related to HRT, or sources from whom the story is drawn.

Stroke prevention options expand to stents (rated 4.5 stars)

This is excellent reporting of a study that examined two ways to prevent stroke- surgical clearing of plaque from the carotid artery and carotid artery stenting. The good use of absolute numbers, and the quantification of harms (future strokes) makes it relatively clear that each procedure carries some level of risk and that neither procedure seems to be overwhelmingly better than the other.

The story would have benefited from some information on the cost of the procedure (surgery vs. stenting) and some indication of how many people in Canada would be affected by these research findings.That being said, this story reaches a standard that few do as it not only explains the quality of the evidence but also explains the magnitude of the benefits.

Study adds evidence that bone drugs work, are safe (rated 3 stars)

This is a decent report on what appears to be a marketing study designed to fend off arguments that osteoporosis drugs do not increase the risk of fractures. While the report was generally well done, a few important elements were missing.

There have been numerous reports and studies looking at the increased risk of specific bone fractures with bisphosphonates and it would have been useful to have reflected this in the report. It is important to recognize that the benefits of these drugs are extremely modest--maybe a 1% reduction in hip fractures over three years or a less than 10% reduction in vertebral fractures (many which the patient doesn't even feel).

In addition to knowing the modest benefits of these drugs, the main thing that consumers need to know, is that the drugs are not benign. In fact, bisphosphonates are associated side effects such as throat or chest pain, difficulty swallowing, and heartburn. Additional rare but serious adverse effects associated with these drugs include abnormal heart rhythm (atrial fibrillation), incapacitating bone/joint/muscle pain and bone loss in the jaw (osteonecrosis).

This study was likely designed by the marketers and subsequently presented as evidence of safety. Although the report was satisfactory, consumers deserve better quality studies especially around issues of patient safety.

Fish oil pills show promise in preventing schizophrenia (rated 3.5 stars)

Overall, this is a well written story that does not sensationalize this potential use for fish oil. That being said, a few key pieces of information are missing and some additions would make this article more useful to the critical consumer. First, information about the design of the study on which it relies would help the reader to critically assess the effectiveness of fish oil. Second, information about potential harms is required. Finally, information about how to purchase quality natural products, such as fish oil, would be informative to the reader who might want to pursue fish oil treatment. For example, reference to the Natural Health Product Regulations (Health Canada) and specifically legislation regarding proper labelling and licensing would help ensure consumers could purchase a safe and quality product.

Combo treatment helps hospital infection (rated 4 stars)

While it can be difficult to report on pre-market products, this article did a good job highlighting some of the important aspects of this new treatment for C. difficile infection. The author successfully provided comparative information and absolute frames to describe the benefits of this treatment and took care to mention the pre-market status of the treatment.

It should be noted that the article did not make mention of the potential harms associated with the monoclonal antibodies. While it may be to early to quantify the harms of this new treatment, it may have been wise to at least acknowledge the potential risks associated with the treatment and avoid over-emphasizing its benefits. In addition, specific information on potential conflicts of interest would have been useful for the readers of this article.

Two new MS medications offer promise - and risks (rated 4.5 stars)

Overall this story is a good example of accurate reporting of articles appearing in the medical literature. It does not attempt to hype the new treatments and gives as much emphasis to the harms from the drugs as it does to the benefits.

New hope for advanced breast cancer patients (rated 3 stars)

The report of this study is generally good, yet falls down in the areas of the explanation of the benefits and harms related to the treatments. The study mentions some side effects, but where are the numbers of cardiac-related outcomes in patients taking Herceptin which we know is part of the published literature? In terms of harms, the report mixes absolute numbers (one woman on the combo died of a blood clot) and absolute percentages (7 to 8% experienced diarrhea)

The most confusing part was the description of the benefits: The study said this: "Median survival was analyzed after about three-fourths of the women had died �€" roughly two years after the study began. It was 61 weeks in the combo group versus 41 for those taking only Tykerb". The problem with this is that the Median value might be a misleading measure of survival than the average (mean). It would have been useful to clearly outline what percentage of women survived for what period of time.

Combo drug therapies best for helping smokers quit (rated 3 stars)

This is a fair story that described the differences between a variety of treatments to help people quit smoking. The discussion of the evidence would have benefited form describing the absolute benefits in terms of the numbers of people who might have been helped. For example, It would have been nice to know how many people were in each arm. If 30% quit using therapy A, how many people was that? three out of ten? thirty out of three hundred? three hundred out of three thousand?

What stands out in this story is the effectiveness of the non-drug treatment where "36 percent of the people who'd used more than 90 minutes of counseling were abstinent at six months, while those who used less or didn't get counseling at all had the same abstinence rate -- around 20 percent."This sixteen point difference was better than any of the drug/ patch/ losenge treatments against another.

Mini pump boosts heart failure survival (rated 4.5 stars)

Severe heart failure has a very high mortality rate and anything that can be done to extend people's lifespans should be considered. However, as this story points out, we need determine how much are we willing to pay in order to extend life for these patients. Information surrounding the availability of this device in Canada was missing from the report and would have been useful for all the Canadian readers. In addition, the story did mention that many of the people involved with the study were consultants for device-making companies, however, we don't know if these consultants were the same individuals quoted in the article. That being said, the fact that the article even mentions potential conflicts of interest is a positive thing and thus this report received a 'satisfactory' rating for this criterion. Overall, this story did a good job at looking at the pros and cons of this type of procedure.

New drug boosts women's sex drive (rated 2 stars)

This story provides very preliminary information on recent research of a new drug that is being used to increase "sexual interest" in pre-menopausal women. Unfortunately, no specific information about this research is provided. Other than knowing these women were pre-menopausal, there is no other description of the research subjects. There was a mention of an approximate doubling of the sexual events (from around 2 to just under 5 a month) but no information was provided as to whether or not this was associated with an overall improvement in quality of life or if an improvement in relationships was seen. In addition, there was no mention of side effects. Far more research and/or disclosure of completed research needs to be provided before anyone should make a decision about whether or not this is a drug that should be considered usefu

Study: Cholesterol drugs may improve flu survival (rated 1.5 stars)

This is a poor story implying, based on a cohort study that is subject to bias, that statins may improve survival from infectious diseases such as the flu.

Not only is there a bias in the kind of research underlying the story (healthy user bias), but the implications of these kinds of connections between statin use and the flu are somewhat ludicrous. The article misses some really important elements, including potential harms of statins and the cost of the potential treatment. In addition, the spokespeople are never identified as having any conflicts of interest.

A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection (rated 3.5 stars)

This is a relatively informative story that presents what is surprising research about advancements in HIV treatment options.

The study tested a new vaccine on more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand and found that a combination of previously existing vaccines reduced the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 per cent. While these results sounded impressive, the story went on to explain the meaning of those relative numbers- "three years after the vaccinations ended, there were 51 new infections among the 8,197 given the vaccine, while there were 74 infections among the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 per cent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group."

While several elements of these stories were well addressed, there was little information provided in regards to other treatment options. The article states that previous "work on HIV vaccines have all ended in failure". This bold statement limited the discussion around other preventative treatments and the provision of potential comparative information.

Furthermore, there was no mention whatsoever about the harms of receiving this vaccine. Altering the immune system can have catastrophic consequences, particularly when introducing viruses from other species (one of the components uses a "bird virus"). Some of the study spokes-people were careful to say that much more work needs to be done to determine the utility of these kinds of vaccines, however, a discussion of the preliminary side effects would have been useful to avoid hype around this preventative treatment.

Shingles vaccine Zostavax arrives in Canada (rated 2 stars)

The biggest downfall of this article was its exaggeration of the prevalence of shingles. While the tone of the article implies that everyone (at least those above 60 years of age) should get Zostavax vaccine, the article does not provide the baseline risk for elderly individuals. While it does say that "the pain affects almost 90 per cent of shingles sufferers", there is no mention of how many seniors actually develop it. According to the American CDC, shingles occurs less than 0.5 % annually in Americans and is associated with a lifetime risk of 1 in 3. FDA suggests 3 in 1000 people will be hospitalized and 1 in 60,000 will die from this disease.

While the story did include some important elements (i.e. cost and availability information), the inclusion of absolute risk reduction values and information on potential harms would have helped portray a more accurate picture of this potentially useful vaccine.

Glaxo vaccine blocks HPV (rated 3.5 stars)

The spokesperson from the company marketing this vaccine says: "Protection against cervical cancer is a very important health need for girls and young women, and we believe Cervarix has an important role to play in addressing this."

The problem is that the story doesn't contain adequate detail to establish this 'important health need' and why this vaccine is better than its comparator. If we are to really understand how this treatment should be used, readers need to be provided with more details on the trial evidence and quantified benefit and harms. The fact that the introduction of Cervarix to the US market was delayed awaiting 'further data' should be a red flag, indicating that there are safety issues needing clarification.

Testosterone Therapy May Help Men With Heart Failure (rated 2.5 stars)

Generally speaking, this was a decent story on the uses of testosterone in cardiac failure. While the evidence presented is clear, it would have been nice to have seen both the benefits and harms quantified. A major drawback of the story centers around the lack of background information provided about this study (i.e. what were the funding sources of this study? who was involved and what are their potential COI?). It is possible that there is a testosterone manufacturer behind this research and such information would be valuable to for readers. That being said, this story is balanced and is characterized by a distinct lack of exaggeration. Most statements are well crafted so as not to develop an overly rosy impression of the treatment. As it concludes: "the case for testosterone therapy in heart failure is far from proven," Amen.

Actos safer for heart than Avandia, study suggests (rated 4.5 stars)

Intermediate or surrogate endpoints are commonly used to approve new drugs. Sometimes the use of these endpoints is valid but the study cited in this story shows that there is also a leap of faith involved in this treatment choice- consequently, that leap of faith may lead to significant harm.

Although these drugs are prescribed to individuals of varying ages, t is important to note that this study only looked at people aged 65 and older. Although not the focus of this study, it is possible that there may be other patient groups who are at risk of heart failure due to these drugs.

Overall, the article presented a fairly well-balanced picture of the risks for the select patient groups. The bottom line is that unless a new drug provides a major advance (compared to what was previously available), it would be wise to wait a while before using it.

Colon cancer survival improved with Aspirin (rated 4.5 stars)

Overall, this was a well written article on the results of this cohort trial of ASA in colon cancer treatment. The author did a good job of outlining the study design (i.e. the specific cohort of patients involved, the fact that ASA was provided alongside the standard treatment of colon cancer etc). Although there was little discussion about the potential harms associated with ASA use, the author did accurately present both the absolute and relative numbers for the benefits of this treatment.

Statins cut heart risks even in healthy patients (rated 1 star)

Conducting a meta-analsysis (combining research study data from several studies together) is highly complex, and can lead to extremely misleading conclusions. Merely stating that "differences in study design and quality were taken into account" is an insufficient statement regarding this critical issue. This is a particular concern because nothing is disclosed about the funding of this study and possible conflicts of interest. For example, the objective of this "research" could be to expand the pharmaceutical company market for statins into healthy patient populations.

Furthermore, not disclosing more about safety issues when there is a long history of safety concerns with statins in all patient populations (not just in a few types of patients) discredits this article as well. Their wording is quite subtle. Saying that there were no differences "in treatment" between patient populations does not say if there were differences in adverse events. Saying that there was not an increased risk of cancer is the only statement about adverse events, and a very superficial one at that. For example, there could have been many deaths with the statin treatment, but not an increased risk of cancer (which often wouldn't be noticed after only four years at that - the length of this analysis).

New radioactive patch appears to zap skin cancer (rated 2 stars)

Reporting on preliminary findings such as this new radioactive patch can be difficult. In some cases, specific information on the drug (i.e. side effects) is not available and thus it is easy to exaggerate what is known- usually the treatment benefits.

Although the study was small and little comparative information was provided to the readers, the results of this preliminary trial do seem promising. The article is clear in stating that the study authors hope this patch will eventually serve as an alternative to surgery.

However, the article did over-emphasize the benefits of the patch-based treatment. The article states that "three months after treatment, biopsies of the cancer sites revealed no residual cancer." This statement implies a 100% success rate. Given the small size of the study, statements like these potentially exaggerate the benefits of this treatment when it is applied to larger scale population groups. Furthermore, while the article indicates that patients reported few side effects, there was no discussion of how serious these side effects were and how often the occurred in the study group.

New drug combo to help infants breathe easier (rated 2.5 stars)

In general, this was a good quality story on the use of a combination treatment for bronchiolitis in infants combining epinephrine (the adrenal hormone) and dexamethasone (the steroid). The main problem is the reliance on relative numbers- the article indicates that the combination therapy could "reduce the number of babies admitted to hospital for a common lung infection by 35 per cent." While that is a 35% improvement, it would be useful to know how many infants would require hospital admission in the first place. Furthermore, it would also be valuable to have more details on exactly why this drug combination proved to be 'truly significant' for families.

Vitamin E May Slow Alzheimer's Decline (rated 1 star)

This story is clearly a very short article based on the results of a clinical trial presented at a recent conference. As such, there can be limited room (or time at the conference) to provide detailed information about many aspects of the role of vitamin E in Alzheimer's treatment. However, even within a short article or conference presentation, there is room to provide some foundational background information on this study and attempt to quantify the observed outcomes and potential adverse effects (if any). The article is unclear in defining the standard of care for Alzheimer's treatment and in communicating the rationale is for adding vitamin E and/or anti-inflammatories to an Alzheimer's treatment regime. Because of this lack of clarity, it is difficult for readers to interpret what additional benefit may be gleaned from adding vitamin E and/or anti-inflammatories to a patient's treatment plan.

New male contraceptive injection appears effective (rated 3.5 stars)

This story reports on a preliminary study looking at a new form of male contraception that appears to be quite successful in a small sample size. However, it is worrying that 1/3 of the men did not complete the study. Readers are left to question whether 1/3 of the men withdrew from the study because of unreported side effects, an unwillingness to get a monthly injection or some other undisclosed reason. Before male contraception becomes a reality, there will need to be a significant discussion about the issues involved and a better understanding of potential long-term health impacts.