One of our readers tipped me off to the flaws in this recent story posted by PBS Newshour. And if you read the reader comments left online in response to the story, you’ll see that she wasn’t the only one who was troubled.
For such a short story, there’s a lot wrong here.
The headline is inaccurate and misleading.
The story’s attempt to link to the journal article goes to a “Page not found” error message.
And the language of the story contradicts itself: sometimes it refers to a correlation while other times it uses the cause-and-effect language of “increased risk” – something that cannot be established by such an observational study.
The story also contradicts itself by ending with caveats about “potential inaccuracy” in the findings, which were described as “not definitive.” But these caveats follow the definitive statements about “increased risk” or the statement of fact in the headline – “Study shows prostate cancer risk rises in male cyclists over 50.” Which is it? Potentially inaccurate and not definitive? Or “study shows risk rises”? Did it show the risk rises, or not? (Answer: no.)
If you read the study, its title delivers an overt message: “An Observational Study of Erectile Dysfunction, Infertility, and Prostate Cancer in Regular Cyclists.” (And yes, I’ve provided you the link to the journal article.) You don’t have to guess that it’s an observational study. The study title tells you that.
And if you read the study, you find a noteworthy description by the authors of the work’s limitations, including:
C’mon PBS. If the story is worth reporting at all (debatable), it’s worth more than what you gave it. Some readers left comments like these:
———————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (1)
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