(From Open Clip Art Library - MajinCline)
Around the globe today, there are misleading headlines about a study in the BMJ, “Long term alcohol intake and risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women: a population based cohort study.”
Alcohol cuts arthritis risk by half in women – Times of India
Alcohol ‘lowers arthritis risk’ for women – The Independent
Alcohol ‘lowers arthritis risk’ – The Press Association
Rheumatoid arthritis risk reduced by moderate alcohol consumption – News-Medical.net
Alcohol reduces risk of arthritis: study – The Local.se
Frequent tipple ‘halves arthritis risk’ – Irish Independent
Drinking wine can keep arthritis at bay, scientists tell women – Scotsman
Drink Thrice a Week to Halve Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis – HeartZine
ALCOHOL ‘REDUCES RISK OF ARTHRITIS’ – Express.co.uk
Risk of arthritis half for ‘moderate’ female drinkers – The Conversation
Moderate Drinking Reduces Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk among Women – French Tribune
Each headline used a definitive statement of a causal connection: cuts/lowers/reduces/halves risk or some variation thereof. And each is inaccurate when applied to the study in question.
The researchers simply concluded this: “Moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with reduced risk of rheumatoid arthritis.”
A statistical association, not proof of cause-and-effect. And that’s all you can accurately say.
And what may have kicked it all off? A BMJ news release:
BMJ Press Release
Moderate drinking may reduce risk of rheumatoid arthritis
Three drinks per week can halve the risk of developing the condition
In that news release, there was not one mention of the limitations of such an observational study – no emphasis on association versus causation.
HealthDay ended its story appropriately and accurately: “Although the study found an association between alcohol and rheumatoid arthritis risk, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.”
Maybe more media around the globe would have gotten it right if the BMJ news release had helped them a bit. We’ve written about flawed BMJ news releases on observational studies before:
We refer the BMJ news release writers to our primer, “Does the Language Fit the Evidence? Association Versus Causation.”
Journals could help lift all ships – or they can (and sometimes do) help us all drown in a daily tsunami of global miscommunication about health news.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Patricia Hartman
July 12, 2012 at 7:10 amThis is only one example of the current trend: do a statistical analysis and publish it, without any real effort to explain or validate the “association”. Thus Vitamin D deficiency is now associated with (and reported in lay press as cause of) asthma, heart disease, etc etc. Is this another symptom of publish or perish?
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like