Just a month and a half ago, a health care journalist wrote on Twitter, “Just once it would be nice to get through Valentine’s Day without some new goofball health story about chocolate.”
She didn’t get her way. On February 11, we reviewed a HealthDay story, “Dark Chocolate May Lower Stroke Risk.”
Well, substitute Easter for Valentine’s Day and dark chocolate Easter eggs for hearts and you can trot out another holiday tie-in about an observational study to be published in the European Heart Journal about dark chocolate, high blood pressure and strokes.
Many stories used the same tired old formula: “chocolate may be good for you….but that doesn’t mean you should start eating a lot more of it.”
The AP story, though, this time added little caveats about the limitations of anobservational study – the kind of study this was. Excerpts:
“Since the study only observed people and did not give them chocolate directly to test what its effects were, experts said more research was needed to determine the candy’s exact impact on the body.”
Alice Lichtenstein, a nutritionist at Tufts University School of Medicine, said it was difficult to link the reduction in heart disease and stroke risk to the chocolate alone, since there may have been other differences between the study participants. “The relationship between chocolate and good health outcomes is still uncertain,” she said.
ABC was wrong with its headline: “Chocolate Protects Against High Blood Pressure, Stroke.” You can’t claim a protective effect from an observational study that can’t establish cause-and-effect.
So, technically, was CNN wrong with its headline, “Daily chocolate may keep the heart doctor away.”
And so was WebMD with its advice, “Nibble on chocolate for a healthier heart.”
But the worst was The Guardian headline from the UK: “It’s official: Chocolate is good for you.”
We have an entire article on the importance of the words used to describe observational studies.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Comments
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.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning 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.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like