The annals of confusing news stories about observational studies showing an association between coffee and…fill in the blank…have a new entry.
Do a Google search for “coffee and melanoma” and you’ll get thousands of returns.
Many of these stories inappropriately used causal language – suggesting that a cause-and-effect had been proven, when it hadn’t.
TIME, for example, headlined it, “This Drink Could Protect You From Skin Cancer.” Yes, it could. But perhaps it would not. And you need to evaluate the evidence, which was observational and could only point to a statistical association, not causation. So “could protect” is misleading in our view. So is “may help thwart…may also be doing your skin a favor…coffee can protect against melanoma” – other phrases used in the story. “Association” was mentioned once, but without explanation or discussion of limitations about drawing causal conclusions from this kind of research. This ending section is more confusing than helpful:
“The group says that their results need to be repeated and confirmed, and that it’s too early yet to change your coffee habits to protect yourself from skin cancer. But the findings support the idea that there might be more you can do to protect yourself from the sun’s harmful rays than only slathering your body in sunscreen.”
CBSNews.com stated that “protective benefits of coffee increased the more a person drank.” It is simply inaccurate to discuss protective benefits when you have not proven cause-and-effect. It’s interesting to note some of the wisdom of the crowds – this user comment left online in particular:
“I don’t think they can draw such conclusions (cause and effect). Coffee drinkers may simply be working more (indoors, less UV) at a job whereas those who work less may be outdoors more and have no need for coffee. Not saying this is true, but their conclusions aren’t necessarily either.”
FoxNews.com repeatedly used the word “protection.” We need to be protected from such misleading language.
HealthDay gets high marks for succinctly stating: “The study only uncovered an association between coffee consumption and melanoma risk; it didn’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship.” One sentence…20 words…made all the difference.
If you really want to learn from an in-depth (and I don’t think you’d find it too academic) explanation of the limitations of the research, see Dr. Perry Wilson’s video on MedPage Today. Excerpt:
“But if we dig a bit deeper, we might not be ready to dig for the extra cup just yet.”
He discusses confounding factors and multiple looks at the same dataset, something he explains very well. Listen and learn.
Coffee is the poster child for abused translation of observational research. If you search for “coffee” on this blog, you come up with dozens of examples of the wrong language used to describe “coffee and xyz” research through the years.
To try to help, we offer a primer, “Does The Language Fit The Evidence? – Association Versus Causation.”
———————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
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.
Regina Tinkham
February 8, 2015 at 7:44 amI have stage IV melanoma. I have drank coffee since I was very young. I have not drank coffee for over a year now, simply because I did not want all the acid that is in coffee and the fact that it could affect my current treatment. I now drink mostly green tea. It is alarming to me that something so easy can be done with knowing all I have went through trying to battle this disease. I am somewhat confused about all this.
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