HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Vitamin D deficiencies
October 13, 2008
This segment didn’t tell viewers who had made the new recommendation, how the conclusion had been reached, how great the danger was, or how much benefit they might hope to gain.
Our Review Summary
This broadcast merely told viewers that an un-named group of doctors had determined that most people, including infants, needed more vitamin D than they were currently getting. It didn’t tell viewers who had come to this conclusion, how the conclusion had been reached, how great the danger was, or how much benefit they might hope to gain.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
This broadcast recommended that breast fed infants as well as other who were not either consuming adequate amounts of vitamin D or receiving sufficient sun exposure use vitamin D supplements. It was not clear from the broadcast as to whether these were available over-the-counter or would require a doctor's prescription.
There was no discussion of the cost for vitamin D supplements.
Considering that the broadcast mentioned problems with bone development, osteoporosis, heart disease, blood pressure control, diabetes, and 'even' cancer - this segment could be considered to have engaged in disease mongering.
There was little discussion of the evidence for the claims made. The viewer was only told that 'a leading pediatrician's group' had just come out with a recommendation that higher levels of vitamin D needed to be consumed.
This broadcast did, at least mention in passing, that there were harms associated with excessive consumption of vitamin D and so one should discuss dosing of infants with one's pediatrician.
The piece accurately reflected the novelty of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation.
While warning us of concerns regarding many of the common chronic conditions afflicting humans that may result from inadequate consumption of vitamin D/ or exposure to sunlight - there was no information about the magnitude of the risk of the various diseases mentioned resulting from low levels of vitamin D.
The broadcast did not rely exclusively on the press release from the 'leading group of pediatricians' as there was a clinician interviewed as part of the segment.
The sole interview was with a physician/editor from 'Health Magazine'. But why was that person chosen? Why not someone from the American Academy of Pediatrics - only referred to as either "They" or "A leading pediatrician's group"? This does not allow a viewer to gather more information from the group issuing the recommendation. The broadcast did not provide any information about the quality of the evidence leading to the conclusions presented.
In passing, exposure to sunlight, vitamin D fortified milk and orange juice, as well as dietary supplements were mentioned as means of obtaining adequate amounts of vitamin D. However, there was no discussion as to how one assesses whether one has adequate amounts of vitamin D or not.
Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.