HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
If red wine's good, are resveratrol pills even better?
July 13, 2009
Interesting piece that explores the hype of resveratrol, a media and advertising darling backed up by little scientific evidence. Nice job.
Our Review Summary
This is a very interesting piece that explores the hype around a compound, resveratrol, a media and advertising darling backed up by little scientific evidence. The story clearly addressed some of the issues consumers should think about when assessing the validity of claims made, even when they appear to come from credentialed individuals.
Kudos!
Click on Criteria for definitions.
In its introduction, the story was clear that it was describing a flurry of activity and interest around a compound found in red wine. It also mentioned that only 2 of the current trials on uses for resveratrol were phase 3 investigations.
The story provided the wide range of costs for this compound.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story indicated that there are currently two phase III clinical trials underway and described what is known about resveratrol as intriguing but very incomplete. It mentioned work done with mice, round worms and yeast. It mentioned results from two studies which point to the possibility that this compound might be of some benefit to diabetics. But as the story also mentions - these studies weren't actually published in scientific journals.
While mentioning the various health claims made for this compound, the story was appropriately circumspect about them. A parting comment from a scientist from the National Institute of Aging indicated that until we know how this compound works and what the benefit might be - offering on the open market was akin to pedaling snake oil.
The story allowed a spokesperson from a company marketing this compound to say that there were no known harms. However, this was countered by a comment from a scientist at the National Institute on Aging who stated that everything has a toxicity and that safe levels for resveratrol remain to be established.
The story mentioned that the earliest hype around resveratrol for its impact on longevity was 2003.
While providing a fairly comprehensive list of the various benefits attributed to the use of resveratrol, the story was careful to indicate the very limited evidence substantiating these claims. It indicated that there are currently or recently completed only about a dozen studies involving this molecule and that of these, only 2 were the type of trial (phase 3) from which one would derive information documenting benefit.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
The story included quotes from a variety of individuals with different expertise and perspectives.
This criterion doesn't apply in the example of this story. Claims for reservatrol are so broad that it would be difficult to discuss other treatment options for everything under the sun for which resveratrol is promoted.
Total Score: 9 of 9 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.