HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Calcium and Osteoporosis
April 25, 2006
A new study says calcium supplements may help ward off fractures in older women, but only when they're taken regularly.
Our Review Summary
This television morning show "Health Watch" segment discusses results of a recent study which showed that calcium supplements are effective in preventing fractures. These results seem to contradict the much publicized recent results from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which found that calcium supplementation does not have any affect on the risk of fractures. This story does adequately highlight the main difference between these two results – this study looked at the subgroup of women who were at least 80% compliant, whereas the WHI study looked at the overall study population. While this story attempts to clear up the confusion in the seemingly contradictory results, the story doesn't quantify benefits and it exaggerates the seriousness of osteoporosis and osteopenia (low bone mass). When we are told that "34 Million Americans have low bone mass," there is no information on how is this defined. What is the seriousness of this condition? We are also told that "1 in 2 women will suffer a fracture in her lifetime." How many of these fractures are attributable to osteoporosis or osteopenia? While these two statements may be factual, the manner in which they are presented overstates the problem and only serves to alarm the viewer. The story does not mention if the supplements are available, if they are available over the counter and if you can buy them in the formulation used in the study (600mg twice a day). There are a lot of different kinds of calcium supplements available and the story should have provided the viewer with some guidance about which to choose. No harms are mentioned. In the study, the researchers found that constipation was a side effect of taking the calcium supplement. The story does not mention if the supplements are new or different from existing supplements. The story does mention diet and weight bearing exercise as alternatives to calcium supplementation. However, more information about the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives should have been provided. Other options, such as exercises to improve stability and interventions to prevent falls, could also have been mentioned. No costs are mentioned and no independent sources are quoted. People in television news may say they don't have the time to address all of these issues. But between the words spoken on the air and those displayed onscreen in graphics, there were about 800 words in this story. We have five-star-rated stories elsewhere on this site that had as few as 529 words. It can be done.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story does not mention if the supplements are available, if they are available over the counter and if you can buy them in the formulation used in the study (600mg 2x/day).
No costs are mentioned.
The story exaggerates the seriousness of osteoporosis and osteopenia (low bone mass). When we are told that "34 Million Americans have low bone mass," we have to wonder, how is this defined? What is the seriousness of this condition? We are also told that "1 in 2 women will suffer a fracture in her lifetime." How many of these fractures are attributable to osteoporosis or osteopenia? While these two statements may be factual, the manner in which they are presented overstates the problem and only serves to alarm the viewer.
The story does provide information about the nature of the study being reported. The story explains that this was a large, controlled trial and that benefits of calcium were found only in the compliant group, not in the overall study sample. The story also explains why these results are different from recent results from the Women's Health Initiative.
No harms are mentioned. In the study, the researchers found that constipation was a side effect of taking the calcium supplement
The story does not mention if the supplements are new or different from existing supplements.
The story doesn't quantify benefits in any way.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
No independent sources are quoted.
The story does mention diet and weight bearing exercise as alternatives to calcium supplementation. However, more information about the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives should have been provided. Other options, such as exercises to improve stability and interventions to prevent falls, could also have been mentioned.
Total Score: 2 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.