NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Does the language of a story match the evidence?

Posted By


Mark Zweig and Emily DeVoto authored a thoughtful piece on how journalists may imply cause-and-effect in reporting on research, when the study design didn’t really establish cause-and-effect. Examples:

Eating fish may help preserve eyesight in older people.

The authors calculated that participants who did 75 minutes a day of activities… lowered their risk of dying by 30%…

Overall, those who drank [coffee] were 22 percent less likely to have diabetes, with decaf drinkers reaping somewhat greater benefit…

Women who ate fish 5 times a week cut their risk of dying later from a heart attack by half…

Higher aspirin dose seems to stave off some cancers… The strongest effect was for colon cancer.

Drugs that suppress acids may make fractures more likely…Taking proton pump inhibitors for more than a year increased the likelihood of a hip fracture by 44 percent.

They urge health care journalists to be mindful of when cause-and-effect language is warranted by the study design and when it is not.

You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.