Health News Review

The HealthDay story failed on many fronts – no mention of the study’s limitations, no mention of harms, and a touting of the benefits of berries without further discussion of the evidence. 2 stars here, 3 for TIME, 4 for NPR.

Our Review Summary

The main failures of the story are caution in interpreting observational studies and failure to consider alternative hypotheses, such as that potassium from the berries may have accounted for this finding.

The story never mentioned that such observational studies – based on people keeping a diary of habits and self-reporting – has innate limitations.  And they cannot prove cause and effect – only a statistical association.  These are significant omissions.  We offer a primer on this topic that would help journalists and the public.

Another limitation that was not discussed in the article was that researchers think that a specific compound called anthocyanin may be responsible for any reduced risk for heart attack that might be at play. But the problem is that they’re not completely sure, since the amount of anthocyanin in the body cannot be measured. They acknowledge that another compound may be responsible.

Then, there were the things that were not mentioned in the story – no discussion of prior research, harms, study limitations and alternatives.


Why This Matters

The story touts berry consumption, when the true benefits of anthocyanins are questionable, as reported by the study. More supporting evidence is needed, before the article can make such dietary recommendations. Younger women need to focus on avoiding overweight/ obesity, and behaviors such as exercise and not smoking as the best way to avoid premature heart disease.  These are much stronger risk factors than anthocyanin consumption.


Criteria

Not Applicable

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  Costs not mentioned but we think most readers know the ballpark costs of berries.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The study focused on the different subsets of flavonoids and looked to see whether there were any health benefits associated with five specific ones (flavonols, flavones, flavanones, flavan-3-ols and anthocyanins). The study also looked at flavonoid polymer and noted that it remains poorly defined, which is probably why the results for this subclass was not emphasized, despite being statistically significant.

The article mentions that there is a 32 percent reduction in risk for heart attack, but this is the figure associated with only anthocyanin, after adjustment of multiple variables. The story fails to mention that increased consumption of all other flavonoid subclasses did not show a significant statistical association.

The true impact of increased anthocyanin intake is also questionable. The original journal article states: “There are currently no specific biomarkers for anthocyanins because there is currently a limited understanding of their degradation and metabolism after ingestion. It is possible that our findings for anthocyanins might be due to other constituents found in the foods that contribute most to this subclass.”

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story did not discuss potential harms, but all health interventions have harms, as well as benefits.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story failed to identify any of the study’s limitations.

At a minimum, the writer should have identified that this is an observational study and that there are always additional (uncontrolled) factors that can result in incorrect findings, particularly in secondary analyses of diet and disease outcomes over time. Observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect, yet this story was filled with discussion of “benefits” that cannot, indeed, be established in such a study.  Strong statistical association in a large sample – YES.  Cause-and-effect showing benefit – NO.  Read our primer.

Satisfactory

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no disease mongering.

Satisfactory

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story quotes two independent experts, preventive cardiologist Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum and nutritionist Dana Greene. We wish that the experts were quoted on a more analytical view of the study, instead of talking so much about berry diets. Greene is even quoted as saying, “[Berries] are so good for you,” and “There is no downside” to eating berries. Again, too much of anything could become more of a harm than a benefit, as mentioned above. It’s interesting that Steinbaum was also interviewed in the competing TIME story.  Why?

Not Satisfactory

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

No alternatives are mentioned. To prevent heart attacks, patients can either take medications, such as blood-thinning and cholesterol-lowering drugs, or make lifestyle changes, like maintaining a healthy weight, exercising and not smoking.

Not Applicable

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

The availability of strawberries and blueberries is not in question.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention that previous studies have addressed the beneficial effects of flavonoid consumption on heart risk. The researchers studied which specific classes of flavonoids might reduce the risk for heart attacks.

Satisfactory

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The lede of the HealthDay story is almost identical to the press release, and the story uses similar language as the release. However, there is evidence of original reporting with the two independent sources.  Barely satisfactory.

Total Score: 3 of 8 Satisfactory


We Welcome Comments

But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual 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. Please see more on our comments policy.