A simple test proven to predict how long you’ll live? Gannett gaffe

A veteran health care journalist sent me the following story and wrote, “So irresponsible, bad enough on local (TV) news, but it ends up on USA Today? I hope you can skewer it.”

“How long will you live? Try the Sitting Rising Test,” was the headline on USA Today’s website as they posted a TV news story and a web story from KSDK-TV in St. Louis.  Both media organizations are owned by Gannett.

It was an unquestioning story about a Brazilian researcher’s work on a measurement of “non-aerobic physical fitness” – how easily can you rise without help from a sitting position? It’s called the Sitting Rising Test or SRT.

The story called it a “simple test you can do just about anywhere that’s been proven to predict how long you’ll live.”

Hmm.

The story explained that you “lose points” for being off balance or needing support.  The reporter said, “for every point you get, there’s a 21% decrease in mortality from all causes.”

There was nothing in the story about the sensitivity or specificity of the test.  This is always something readers should look for in news about tests.

The story also stated, “If you have bad knees or hips, don’t try this at home.”  Is the story implying that those with bad knees or hips are destined to fail, and to die sooner? (In fact, that’s how one USA Today reader read it, leaving this comment online: “I guess I’m dying soon because my knees are shot. From arthritis and osteoporosis. I don’t think this is a fair test at all.” Another wrote: “According to this, I am already dead.”)

Since the TV story showed many of the station’s personnel trying the test, I’m sure that in-house it was a laugher – and very popular since so many staffers got additional face time on the air.

But how well did the station inform and educate its audience with the story?  And how well did USA Today vet the story before passing it along to its online readers and viewers?

In a past publication in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the Brazilian researcher in the story wrote:

“In conclusion, a low score on a simple functional assessment tool, the (sitting rising test) SRT, was associated with >6-fold higher all-cause mortality in men and women. The SRT therefore may be a useful tool for screening, functionally classifying, and risk stratifying large samples of subjects.”

Let’s clear something up:  “Associated with” is not the same as “proven to predict.”

Let me emphasize a couple of other points:

1. This is interesting research.  But this is not the way to report on such preliminary research, with definitive claims not supported by evidence.
2. Dr. Araujo’s work has received a tremendous amount of publicity.  Just do a Google search and you’ll see many stories.
3. This is not the first time we’ve seen the USA Today website republish – or cross-promote – a flawed story done by another Gannett-owned property. We recently wrote about another troubling cross-promotion involving USA Today and a Jacksonville TV station.

Finally, I often like to check how online readers scrutinize stories.  Here are some comments left on the USA Today website:

• I say this is hogwash. Due to injuries I’ve had several knee surgeries. However, I can still ride a unicycle and juggle. This ‘test’ has zero to do with balance and a huge amount to do with whether you’ve had severe knee injuries in the past. I give the test a 1 on the scale of 1 to 10. Further, my resting heart rate is 54 and my BP is 110/65. I’d rather ask the classic 8 Ball than rely on this ‘test’.
• I believe 73 year old Stephen Hawking would disagree with the validity of this study. It would be safe to say for the last 50 years he could not have passed the sit and rise test. Sadly this is the worst junk science and USA today should be ashamed for putting this on their site.
• As a fitness professional I realize that this test is rather limited in scope. But overall, it does address several areas that are extremely telling for one’s fitness and health. If serious injuries prevent someone from being able to do this test, it is not for you; it doesn’t mean there is no validity in the research. Having difficulty getting yourself off the floor IS a contributing factor for poor health – sans a physical injury. Take it for what it is, a limited test that reveals areas of health. It is NOT the GOLD standard by any means.
• My friend pooped her pants trying this, so what is her future?

————————-

Tweet

Follow us on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.