If more voices joined in to explain the limitations of observational studies, maybe we could have a reverse Tinker Bell effect. “Clap loud enough and Tinker Bell will come back to life!” Maybe if we clap loud enough for those who explain the limitations of observational studies, we can kill unfounded headlines and stories about such research.
I was traveling when a paper in JAMA Pediatrics concluded: “Our work suggests that induction/augmentation during childbirth is associated with increased odds of autism diagnosis in childhood.”
On a Forbes blog, Emily Willingham wrote:
“The headlines linking labor induction and autism risk are splashy–aren’t they always with “autism linked to” stories? My favorite misstatement of the research is in this headline from Bloomberg: “Autism risk for children may be raised when labor induced,” as though the cause-and-effect association is established and inducing labor is The Factor that leads to the risk.
It could just as easily have read, “Labor induction risk may be raised when child is autistic.” Why? Because the study in question did not show a cause and effect between induced (initiated) or augmented (hastened) labor and autism. It found an increased odds that a child born following a labor induction and augmentation would later be labeled as autistic by special education services. Yet there are problems with reaching even that conclusion.”
You should read the rest of her post to get her complete takedown of the research.
On her blog, “Red Wine & AppleSauce: Health and Science News for Moms,” Tara Haelle wrote:
“before I dig into the study’s weak findings and myriad limitations, first consider that everything plus the kitchen sink has already been “linked” to autism (despite the strong genetic link for autism). Just a partial list includes air pollution, mom’s antibodies, mom’s depression, low birth weight, high birth weight, being born in the summertime, fertility drugs and living near a highway.”
Join the club. Clap loudly for those who evaluate the evidence.
————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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