NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

ICYMI: another association ? causation case with labor induction & autism risk

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

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.

You might also like

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.