Read on Twitter
Every day it seems like there’s a slew of new research about #COVID19 …and news stories to go along with them. Between January and May, an estimated 23,000 papers came out. And they keep coming. (1/19) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/scientists-are-drowning-covid-19-papers-can-new-tools-keep-them-afloat
Without a doubt, we are in a mad dash to learn about #COVID19 - and how to treat people who get really sick from it. But when it comes to how we’re learning about the science, how fast is too fast? Are these studies ready for prime time? (2/19)
We need to balance sharing information quickly while still vetting it thoroughly. That’s no easy task. (3/19) https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/health/science-by-press-release-gupta/index.html
At one end of the spectrum - we have press releases. Typically, these show you just a couple of top-line numbers, but they have no data and are not peer-reviewed. They rarely contain negative information. (4/19)
@peterhotez warns: “Trying to do science by press release...has universally led to misunderstanding and has no place in science.” (5/19)
According to @garyschwitzer, a press release “is there to make your institution, your client, your big-name researcher, your product, your drug company and its products, look as good as can be, hoping that that press release will convince journalists to write about it.” (6/19)
A lot of our enthusiasm around vaccines and therapeutics for #COVID19 has come solely from press statements.
In fact, there is only one published study of a Covid-19 vaccine candidate in humans, which comes from China. (7/19) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31208-3/fulltext
In fact, there is only one published study of a Covid-19 vaccine candidate in humans, which comes from China. (7/19) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31208-3/fulltext
Last month, Moderna issued a press release with positive but partial results from its Phase 1 trial for a #COVID19 vaccine. Moderna's stock price rose as much as 30% that day. (8/19) https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-interim-phase-1-data-its-mrna-vaccine
More recently, we heard that a steroid called dexamethasone reduced the risk of death for patients on ventilators - but that also initially came from a press release. Many researchers are frustrated they can’t see the data and judge for themselves. (9/19) https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/status/1272871168186314752
Scientists are also releasing preprints of their studies before undergoing peer review. Some do eventually make it into peer-reviewed journals, but many do not. (10/19)
@ivanoransky says “The fact that scientists are getting work out there earlier so that other scientists can pore over it and we can maybe learn things more quickly - that's a good thing.” (11/19)
But he adds these papers often need to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, the early excitement around #hydroxychloroquine came from a preprint on just 42 patients. (12/19)
It wasn’t until later that a number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals showed it wasn’t effective for the treatment or prevention of #COVID19 . (13/19)
Early studies also tend to be observational - meaning they look back at data to see which groups of patients fared better or worse. But to prove a drug or vaccine is effective, we really need randomized prospective controlled trials. (14/19)
Peer-reviewed journals, which are vetted by experts in the field, continue to be the gold standard of research.
While this process typically takes time, many journals are finding ways of speeding up their processes, too. (15/19) https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/health/preprints-research-covid19-coronavirus/index.html
While this process typically takes time, many journals are finding ways of speeding up their processes, too. (15/19) https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/health/preprints-research-covid19-coronavirus/index.html
Which isn’t to say that process is flawless. Earlier this month, we saw two major retractions in top medical journals after questions emerged about the data they used. (16/19) https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/retraction-coronavirus-studies-lancet-nejm/index.html
The blame isn’t just on researchers. As journalists covering a lightning-fast pandemic, we're reporting on studies we normally wouldn’t highlight. (17/19)
@garyschwitzer said journalists need to take the time to do it right. “Just reminding people to slow down. So much of what we're doing, reporting breathlessly at breakneck speed, doesn't need to be reported restlessly at breakneck speed. Words matter and the data matter.” (18/19)
So, what does this all mean for you? @ivanoransky has some great advice: “I think that someone reading, viewing, watching, listening should never make any decisions based on a single report they read whether it's a study or a news report on a study.” (19/19)
