Omega-3 Fatty Acids May Protect the Aging Brain

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The cost of fish is not in question, although a word about the cost of fish oil supplements would not have been inappropriate.

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

Not Satisfactory

Although we think readers will come away with the correct bottom line message on this study, we’re going to rate this criterion unsatisfactory, for two reasons:

• The active verb headline “Omega-3 Fatty Acids May Protect the Aging Brain” suggests a causative link that this study wasn’t designed to prove.
• The story doesn’t tell us what the differences in the cognitive scores were and whether those differences would translate to a noticeable difference in one’s ability to function.

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

Not Applicable

The harms of eating fish are not in question, although there is some concern that certain species high in mercury can be harmful for pregnant women and children.

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

Satisfactory

This is where the HealthDay coverage shined. In addition to cautioning that the study couldn’t prove that omega-3 fatty acids prevent mental decline, the story had a nice discussion of the limitations that apply to this study and other observational studies:

• “It remains possible that factors they did not control for, such as fruit and vegetable consumption, are really responsible for the brain benefits.”
• “Another possibility is that the slight mental decline that the people in the older brain group were experiencing caused them to eat less healthy omega-3-rich foods, instead of vice versa.”

The story also mentioned that a clinical trial of high and low omega-3 intake would help prove whether there’s a beneficial effect.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease mongering.

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

Satisfactory

The story quotes an independent expert, and there were no conflicts that should have been identified.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of other habits or behaviors, such as exercise and mental stimulation, that are associated with maintenance of cognitive function with age. The story also did not mention other potential sources of omega-3 fatty acids, as CNN did.

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

Not Applicable

The availability of fish isn’t in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story nods to previous research suggesting that fish consumption might have benefits for the aging brain.

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

Satisfactory

The story was not based on a press release.