One story – an NPR blog story – ran only 428 words.
Another – on WebMD – ran 661 words.
Usually you’d think the longer story did a better job evaluating the evidence.
But in these examples of two stories on the same study, the shorter NPR blog story did a far better job of reminding readers of the limitations of drawing conclusions from observational studies. It stated:
“But (the researcher) couldn’t resist adding a professorial caveat: “But in order to strengthen a possible causal relationship, we need randomized trial data.”
Good point. Christen’s study, published online in the Archives of Opthalmology, sorted through a lot of data: 39,876 women participating in the Women’s Health Study. But it’s not a randomized trial, and it relies on the women to report what they ate. So it doesn’t prove that it’s the oily fish that’s reducing their risk of macular degeneration.
Other studies are trying to nail down that link. A randomized trial looking at whether taking Omega-3 supplements prevents advanced macular degeneration is currently underway, funded by the National Eye Institute. An earlier trial found that taking zinc and antioxidants reduced the risk of advanced age-related macular degeneration by about 25 percent.
And Christen’s group is starting a randomized trial on whether taking Omega-3 supplements affects rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Bottom line: Christen says he eats “lots of tuna.” Stay tuned for those randomized trials.
But WebMD only cautioned:
“More research is needed to confirm these findings.”
Wow. What were all the additional words used on? Much of it was on quotes like this:
if omega-3 fatty acids could prevent AMD from occurring it would be “amazing.”
‘This will be a great breakthrough, if it is true.”
“The article makes a very important contribution by providing clear evidence that omega-3 fatty acid intake can help prevent macular degeneration.”
That last quote is especially problematic. We can debate how clear this evidence is. And NPR’s blog did a much better job of explaining that – and more efficiently as well.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
A Health Blog
March 18, 2011 at 4:25 amAnd how about this for drawing conclusions:
“Results for fish intake showed that consumption of one or more servings of fish per week, when compared to less than one per month, was associated with a 42 percent lower risk of age related macular degeneration. This lower risk appeared to be due primarily to consumption of canned tuna fish and dark-meat fish.”
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