As all researchers know 5 quick PR tricks to cover up a lack of real healthcare news, science is a grinding parade of failure and dead ends. But as we’ve often written, news release writers sometimes seem hell-bent on making the public believe otherwise.
One thing I won’t miss much about my job at Noodlemagazine.com as it ends this month is reading the daily churn of PR releases.
Each offers a lesson on how mundane findings can be prettied up with a stroke of PR magic.
1) Tout “potential”
Nebraska virologists discover safer potential Zika vaccine (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
Claims are especially tenuous when they come from animal studies. A subhead in this release says this “new mechanism could be a ‘huge leap’ for immunology,” with no mention until the 13th paragraph that this was only tested in mice.
2) Skip the data
Performance enhancer: Sports compression stockings a winning advantage (James Cook University)
A researcher is quoted saying the study “confirmed that there is a protective effect with compression stockings that may be crucial for performance in soccer matches.” But where are the numbers to show the scope of this purported benefit?
3) Pose a question
In the last paragraph we learn: “Technically, the answer to whether Facebook advertising can prevent cancer remains unanswered – it’s impossible to tell how many patients who otherwise would have developed cancer were caught early due to the group’s text-based information program.”
4) “Suggest” something
Diabetes drug could be used to treat common heart failure syndrome, study suggests (Rockefeller University Press)
Unmentioned is that previous research has similarly indicated metformin may help people with heart failure, but it’s an idea that has yet to be shown conclusively in a randomized clinical trial.
5) Use “may”
In Just Six Months, Exercise May Help Those with Thinking Problems (American Academy of Neurology)
Similarly, “may” is a word that masks uncertainty.
Exaggeration is common
- Forty-four per cent promoted animal or laboratory research, of which 74% explicitly claimed relevance to human health.
- Forty per cent reported on the most limited human studies—those with uncontrolled interventions, small samples of less than 30 participants, surrogate outcomes, or unpublished data — with 58% lacking relevant cautions.
