Health news this week is dripping with warm, gushing claims about the health benefits of chocolate – just in time for Valentine’s Day. Headlines such as:
Chocolate – the love drug.
Dark Chocolate & Red Wine – The food of love and health
Chocolate is good for health and relationships.
But one blogger wrote, “I have “Chocolate Concerns.” Is Chocolate as Healthy as Claimed?” Excerpt:
Most cocoa studies are funded by chocolate manufacturers because that industry wants to sell you chocolate by convincing you of all the health properties of cocoa.
Good for her.
But we’d also remind readers to remember that almost all such claims come from observational studies that cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship.
The pervasiveness of the wrong language used to describe observational studies drove us to post a primer on the topic several years ago.
But it’s hard for journalists – or everyday consumer/readers – to read between the lines when even medical journals fail to adequately emphasize the limitations of observational studies.
We’ve written about BMJ news releases on observational studies before – in fact, chocolate hype was one of the topics. They did it with a news release about a white rice and diabetes study, too. And again with a news release about alcohol and arthritis. And, most recently (at least of the ones we’ve caught), a BMJ journal’s news release has delivered mixed messages on another arthritis study – this one headlined, “Sunlight may help ward off rheumatoid arthritis in women.” Mind you, this was creative research from a huge sample population, but it based its conclusion on where people lived (including latitude, altitude, and cloud cover) and then estimated UV exposure. That may result in a statistical association, but it can’t prove that sunlight “warded off” anything in the women studied. No cause and effect could be proven by this kind of study. Yet “effect” was mentioned 3 times. “Association” in its various forms was also mentioned 3 times. But there wasn’t a word about this kind of study being unable to go beyond association into causation.
So how should you interpret the claims that doing housework hurt men’s sex lives? Read about this association, which did not prove causation.
And how should you interpret the news that “Another benefit of exercise – at least for Caucasian men – is that it may cut the risk both of developing prostate cancer and having high-grade disease”? You’d have to be really good to pick up on the hints in the MedPage Today story:
Because the story may have confused readers by using phrases like:
It danced around the edges, mentioning “that the cohort was small, which raises the possibility that the findings are the result of chance” and that “factors that were not measured, such as diet, might have played a role” and that the questionnaire used in the self-reporting was “subject to the participant’s interpretation.”
Bottom line: There are built-in limitations in observational studies. They don’t make the research invalid or unimportant by any means. But they don’t warrant causal verbs.
OK, you’ve slogged through another one of these lectures. You deserve a candy bar.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Alia Bucciarelli
February 14, 2013 at 9:21 amThanks, Gary. We are reviewing an observational chocolate study in the class I teach at Tufts called “Writing about Health and Medicine.” On tap is to discuss absolute vs. relative risk and caveats about observational studies. I’m bringing this post to share!
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