HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Eating light on the Mediterranean diet may prevent depression
October 06, 2009
A 183-word story just can't do much. And this story didn't. The paper clearly copied a BBC story and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
Our Review Summary
A 183-word story just can't do much. And this story didn't.
The NY paper clearly picked up the story from the BBC and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
But at the heart of the story was the improper and inaccurate use of causal language from an observational study that can't establish causation, but only association. It is wrong when the story states, "The diet...has a positive effect on mood."
This kind of research news via briefs and pickups from other news organizations is a waste of time and space.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of the Mediterranean diet is not in question.
Costs of this diet were not discussed, but that's ok.
No real discussion of depression, so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
The story fails in almost every regard on the evidence, starting with the fact that it couldn't even correctly state where the study was published. The story said it was in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was not. It was in the Archives of General Psychiatry. If any reader/consumer tried to track it down in JAMA - as the story led me to do - that reader would have wasted a lot of time - as I did.
But the story also failed to say anything about the limitations of such observational studies, or anything about how association does not equal causation. Yet it used words like "the diet...has a positive effect on mood." That is wrong. No causal link can be established by such a study.
Are there any harms of the Mediterranean diet? We'd never know from this story.
No claims of novelty were made, so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
We criticize any story that only uses relative risk reduction figures. This story used only a 30% relative risk reduction figure and then used a quote from the principal investigator saying, "Thirty percent is a large reduction in the risk..."
We expect the story to provide the answer to this question: "Thirty percent of what?"
It's not clear that there was any independent reporting that took place. The NY paper apparently just picked up the story from the BBC and copied even the erroneous information on where the study was published. This is as bad as relying on a news release, so we rule it unsatisfactory. Such 183-word research news via proxy is a waste of time and space.
No independent journalism took place. Only a single source was quoted - and that quote was picked up from another news organization.
A lot gets left out in a 183-word story. Forget about putting this idea into the context of other treatments for depression when such little space and effort is afforded the topic.
Total Score: 0 of 6 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.