"Researchers closer to meningitis vaccine"
Source: Herald Sun
Published: 07 May 2012
Category: Pharmaceutical
Rating:
(3 stars)
Keywords: meningococcal meningitis vaccine
what they said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)
AUSTRALIAN researchers say they are a step closer to developing a vaccine against the type of meningitis that mostly affects Europe and North America and kills hundreds every year.
The original article can be found at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/researchers-closer-to-meningitis-vaccine/story-e6frf7jx-1226348498249
| Criteria |
Rating |
| Novelty of Treatment |
Satisfactory (?) |
| Availability of Treatment |
Not Satisfactory (?) |
| Treatment Options |
Satisfactory (?) |
| Disease Mongering |
Satisfactory (?) |
| Evidence |
Satisfactory (?) |
| Quantification of Benefits of Treatment |
Not Satisfactory (?) |
| Harms of Treatment |
Satisfactory (?) |
| Costs of Treatment |
Not Applicable |
| Sources of Information |
Not Satisfactory (?) |
| Relies on Press Release |
Not Satisfactory (?) |
what we said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)
This story has been bought from an overseas news agency and mass-reproduced internationally. So despite having an Australian basis, the story hasn't been written, or even added to, by an Australian journalist. It also relies heavily on the press release http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-05/l-nvs050412.php with half the text reproduced verbatim. A comment from a local independent expert would have clarified these points and given it a true local context.
Content wise it falls down in two ways: 1) It does not tell us whether the vaccine tested is the one developed by Novartis, the immunogenicity of which has been tested (with good outcomes) in infants, the report of which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in February this year. 2) The story does not make clear this was a trial of vaccine immunogenicity, and not of vaccine efficacy. This lack of clarity is seen in the statement that: "...further trials must be held to determine the duration of the protection", when a more accurate statement would have been that further trials must be held to confirm its level of protection and its duration.
public forum
There are currently no comments on this article.
|