How do you say the results are the same maggot?

Two studies published in the British Medical Journal show that using maggots against bacteria is no more or less effective (or cost-effective) than using a hydrogel. So what's your headline?

Two studies published in the British Medical Journal show that using maggots against bacteria is no more or less effective (or cost-effective) than using a hydrogel.

So what's your headline, Mr. or Ms. Reporter? What is it, maggot? (Picture from a report on maggots done at the Worsley School.)

Maggots effective, says dbtechno. Maggots work as well as medicine, says Healthknowitall. Maggots as good as regular leg ulcer treatment, reports the Associated Press.

Guess that settles it. Or does it?

Maggot therapy offers no advantage for leg ulcers, writes MedPage Today. Maggots no wonder cure for festering wounds, says Reuters. Skip the maggots, doc suggests Discover.

So what is it? Maggot?

The actual conclusion is that maggots were quicker than the gel in removing the dead tissue, but it's going to hurt more. The rate of healing and reduction of bacteria were about the same. And the cost is similar.

My conclusion?

When there is no result, when there is no difference between the two therapies under discussion, in either effectiveness or cost, reporters should say that, and not act like festering maggots on the suppurating sore of journalism.

Newsletters

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
See All
See All