July 11, 2012

BMJ news release on alcohol & arthritis may have contributed to misleading coverage

Posted By

Tags

(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.

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Patricia Hartman

July 12, 2012 at 7:10 am

This 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?

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.