Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IndigoFenix t1_jcjm72e wrote

You ever notice how the title is designed to create as much argument as possible while still being technically correct? I hate what science journalism has turned into.

Here is the paragraph describing the results of the study:

>Results There were approximately 1.65 million doses of BNT162b2 administered and 77 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among those aged 12 to 17 years, which met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Of the 77 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.0 [1.7] years; 63 male individuals [81.8%]), 51 (66.2%) developed myocarditis or pericarditis after dose 2 of BNT162b2. Overall, 74 individuals (96.1%) with an event were assessed in the emergency department, and 34 (44.2%) were hospitalized (median [IQR] length of stay, 1 [1-2] day). The majority of adolescents (57 [74.0%]) were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs only, and 11 (14.3%) required no treatment. The highest reported incidence was observed among male adolescents aged 16 to 17 years after dose 2 (15.7 per 100 000; 95% CI, 9.7-23.9). Among those aged 16 to 17 years, the reporting rate was highest in those with a short (ie, ≤30 days) interdose interval (21.3 per 100 000; 95% CI, 11.0-37.2).

51

JSutt771 t1_jcllnlb wrote

The title is fine. The problem is when people base a conclusion from the title. If all the details we needed to draw factual and accurate conclusions were in the title, it wouldn't be called the title. It'd be called the article.

People need to read.

22

no0k t1_jcnia0g wrote

The real problem is the fact that you didn't even realize the conclusion is literally baked into the title. Reading isn't the problem - your lack of comprehension is.

−5

butcher99 t1_jckpia2 wrote

after reading both I don't see the probem. 77 cases out of 1.65 would be rare. 34 out of 77 were hospitalized. Not even half That is exactly what the article says. I took that directly from your cut and paste.

Please explain what was wrong with the title. It just quotes the study. You may also note there were no deaths reported in the study. At least in your quote.

16

Funwithdad22 t1_jcl3qku wrote

I think what they are saying is that the title could have multiple meanings.

1st meaning is accurate to the study. Halfing the patients who had myocarditis 34/77

2nd meaning is Half of the total number of study participate s went to the hospital

not accurate. I don't see how people could believe this. Then again people who don't read the study and are antivaxxers aren't the brightest people so maybe I be do believe it.

I think the title is clear enough and adds vital information.

11

Voices4Vaccines OP t1_jcoc7h9 wrote

If anyone wants to clarify a better way to write it out, I'm all ears. Newer to this platform and more familiar with Twitter (where editorialization abounds).

My thought was just that most people wouldn't get the core info out of a long JAMA article, since the unique addition of this study as it was circulated on medtwitter, was the low rate of hospitalization. So thought some editorialization was necessary.

3

gypsygib t1_jcm5ojq wrote

Yeah but 74 went to the emergency room, howany got it and just didn't know.

2

Voices4Vaccines OP t1_jcjniwr wrote

I'm not a science journalist. I highlighted that detail because most of this information isn't new, as the authors note: "many of the cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were mild and required either no treatment or were managed conservatively with NSAIDs, similar to what has been reported in other studies."

What is actually new is the finding that many weren't hospitalized, and that those who were had a shorter duration than previously recorded: "Almost all episodes were seen in an emergency department, fewer than one-half of adolescents were admitted to hospital, and those who were hospitalized experienced a short length of stay (median duration: 1 day)."

4

Georgie___Best t1_jcksgd9 wrote

Why not take the study title and just include more information from the abstract?

The majority of myocarditis or pericarditis events after BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents are mild and do not require hospitalisation.

Concise, accurate, and it isn't clickbait like the title you chose.

7

Voices4Vaccines OP t1_jcobosh wrote

I'm newer to Reddit, so if that would be preferred I'll take note. I didn't want to state it as fact, rather than study finds, because this study was fairly unique when compared to previous research.

2

Georgie___Best t1_jcoq1dq wrote

Don't stress about it too much - the fact that you actually linked the study and not some science journalism article puts you way ahead of 99% of posts I see on this sub.

It's good to be cautious when asserting things as factual, so you could definitely add "Study finds ...", but I personally think it makes it more wordy for information that is assumed when you're linking a paper directly.

2

redditknees t1_jclrz2n wrote

The originating title in JAMA is “Myocarditis or Pericarditis Events After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Individuals Aged 12 to 17 Years in Ontario, Canada”. This is a pretty standard and neutral PICO format title.

The problem is people on reddit (and elsewhere) taking that original article and translating it to focus on upping readership.

1