In a race for incomplete news coverage, news about a study in the journal Menopause, “Moderate alcohol intake lowers biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women,” may outpace news from earlier in the week from a BMJ paper about alcohol and arthritis – both in volume and in missing key caveats.
This was a tiny, short-term study in just 40 women. Yet look at how definitive are the statements in this sampling of headlines:
Nightly Glass Of Wine May Protect Boomer Women’s Bones
Cocktails can prevent bone loss
Ladies, Drink to Your (Bone) Health
Bottoms up, ladies! Moderate drinking may be good for your bones
Booze boosts bone health: Study
Good news for drinkers! A glass of wine a day ‘protects women against brittle …
Let’s drink to that! Two glasses of wine a day ends menopause misery
Perhaps even more important, one important caveat was missed by almost all stories. The TIME.com story was an exception:
“Although there is substantial evidence that moderate alcohol consumption correlates with higher bone mass density in postmenopausal women, it is much less clear whether consuming alcohol lowers the fracture rate,” the authors note. “Therefore, even if drinking had no detrimental effects, it would be unwise to recommend drinking for the purpose of preventing fractures.”
Earlier the story was careful to explain:
Researchers tracked certain blood markers of bone health throughout, and found that these markers of bone density correlated positively with alcohol consumption: in other words, the more the women drank within the moderate range, the better their bone health looked.
I’ve added the emphasis in red to point out that – in other words – this study looked at only a surrogate marker. Should women care about a blood marker? Or should they care about real outcomes like fractures? This study didn’t show anything about the latter. That doesn’t make it unimportant. It is intriguing research. But the news coverage usually failed to point out this important limitation. Stories overstated and oversold.
Maybe journalists were swayed by the researchers’ comments: “The results presented here have a clear message for public health as well as for practicing clinicians advising and managing patients at risk of osteoporosis.” Seems a little over the top given the limitations we’ve highlighted.
Journalists and consumers should read our little primer, “Surrogate markers may not tell the whole story.” Journalists need to ask themselves: What was the outcome being studied? What was the endpoint? In how many people? For how long? What can we say and what can’t we say about the significance of this?
(Photo credit: Thoursie on stock.xchng)
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Federal health agencies block journalists’ access to COVID-19 experts & information. By Gary Schwitzer (USA) (@garyschwitzer) ➡️
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/03/federal-health-agencies-block-reporters-access-to-covid-19-experts-information/
Fed agencies have censors/public information officers controlling reporters' news gathering. It's worse that journalists won't tell the public about it. @nytimes @spj_tweets https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1243143047908659201
A national emergency is no excuse to lose a pillar of democracy. Do you really want the federal government deciding what you need to know? https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1243143047908659201
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