The release focuses on a recent journal article that reviews the available medical literature concerning the effects of cranberry consumption on preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs). The release tells readers that “healthcare professionals should be telling their patients to have cranberry products as a first step in reducing recurrent UTIs.” However, the release offers little substance to support the claim, and neglects to provide information on the extent of benefits or any information on the underlying studies that were reviewed. The assertion that cranberry products are “a first step” implies cranberries were systematically compared with other interventions for preventing recurrence, and that’s not the case here.
UTIs are common, unpleasant for patients, and can lead to serious complications. The problem of antibiotic overuse for UTIs as well as other infections, and the resulting development of antibiotic resistance, is also a concern. For these reasons, patients who suffer from recurring UTIs may well want to try relatively inexpensive methods that hold promise for preventing infection. But it’s important for people to make informed decisions, and not to rely on broad, unsupported statements.
The release notes that “cranberry products are low cost,” which is fair enough and is sufficient to earn this a satisfactory rating. The issue of cost is, however, complicated by the fact that the release offers no information on what sort of cranberry products a patient may use. Is one glass of cranberry juice per day sufficient? Does one need to consume the whole berries? Or should patients take over-the-counter cranberry-based supplements? Costs would vary depending on how one chooses to pursue the vague directions discussed in the release.
Benefits are not quantified. According to the release, “Authors found a statistically significant risk reduction in repeat UTIs overall, but not significant for any particular subgroup.” But what does “statistically significant risk reduction” mean? Were patients 10 percent less likely to get a UTI? 0.1 percent? Those are both statistically significant, but there’s a world of difference. In fact, the published study reported that the risk of recurrent infection was reduced by approximately 33 percent. Including this quantitative information would greatly strengthen the release.
The release says only that taking cranberries as a health supplement is “low risk.” And that’s true. But that doesn’t mean that it’s no risk. For example, the University of Maryland notes that one of the chemicals found in cranberries can increase the risk of kidney stones for some people — that’s valuable information for readers who have a history of kidney stones. Even if the harms are minimal, it is important to note that fact explicitly.
The release notes that the journal article is a meta-analysis of 28 studies, which involved close to 5,000 patients. That’s good, but not quite good enough — a little more information was needed. For example, what sort of studies are we talking about? How many were randomized controlled trials (the gold standard) and how many were observational? The release doesn’t need to provide details on all 28 studies, but it should tell readers whether any of the studies used placebo, were double-blind, etc.
No disease mongering here. The release refers to a UTI as a “potentially debilitating infection,” but given that UTIs can lead to kidney damage or sepsis, that’s not inaccurate.
This is satisfactory, yet the release could have been more transparent about the organization that issued the release. The study itself was supported by a Portuguese university and a Portuguese bank, which is noted in the release. However, the release lists a PR firm as the contact but includes a quote from the director of the Cranberry Institute and a summary of the Institute as background, without ever mentioning the group’s relationship to the study. After looking at the Cranberry Institute’s website it’s clear that the trade group has worked with the PR firm previously on news releases. Why not explain the Cranberry Institute’s interest in the research?
There are a number of lifestyle changes, in addition to modifying one’s cranberry consumption, that can reduce the risk of UTIs. For example, increasing one’s water intake or changing one’s form of birth control.
In addition, there are medical interventions such as use of vaginal estrogen preparations (for post-menopausal women) and taking an antibiotic preventively after intercourse.
The story doesn’t address this, but it can be assumed that most (if not all) readers will be familiar with the availability of products containing cranberries. Ergo, we’ll rate this as not applicable. It’s worth noting that the release gives readers little idea of what sort of cranberry products a patient could — or should — use to lower their risk of a UTI.
This is not the first journal article to review the available research on whether cranberry consumption can help to prevent recurrent UTIs — only the most recent. See, for example, previous reviews from 2012 and 2007. The release does not refer to these previous reviews or make clear how this most recent review article advances our understanding of the subject.
As with the conflict-of-interest section, this earns a satisfactory rating, but includes some odd language that is worth noting. First of all, there is no unjustifiable language in regard to the study itself — thus the satisfactory rating. However, the release also quotes the director of an industry-funded organization, who notes that this research “revitalizes the enthusiasm for cranberry products year-round.” The relevant paragraph comes as a distinct non sequitur and gives the release the tone of an advertisement, rather than an attempt to raise awareness of recent health research findings.
The release focuses on a recent journal article that reviews the available medical literature concerning the effects of cranberry consumption on preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs). The release tells readers that “healthcare professionals should be telling their patients to have cranberry products as a first step in reducing recurrent UTIs.” However, the release offers little substance to support the claim, and neglects to provide information on the extent of benefits or any information on the underlying studies that were reviewed. The assertion that cranberry products are “a first step” implies cranberries were systematically compared with other interventions for preventing recurrence, and that’s not the case here.
UTIs are common, unpleasant for patients, and can lead to serious complications. The problem of antibiotic overuse for UTIs as well as other infections, and the resulting development of antibiotic resistance, is also a concern. For these reasons, patients who suffer from recurring UTIs may well want to try relatively inexpensive methods that hold promise for preventing infection. But it’s important for people to make informed decisions, and not to rely on broad, unsupported statements.
The release notes that “cranberry products are low cost,” which is fair enough and is sufficient to earn this a satisfactory rating. The issue of cost is, however, complicated by the fact that the release offers no information on what sort of cranberry products a patient may use. Is one glass of cranberry juice per day sufficient? Does one need to consume the whole berries? Or should patients take over-the-counter cranberry-based supplements? Costs would vary depending on how one chooses to pursue the vague directions discussed in the release.
Benefits are not quantified. According to the release, “Authors found a statistically significant risk reduction in repeat UTIs overall, but not significant for any particular subgroup.” But what does “statistically significant risk reduction” mean? Were patients 10 percent less likely to get a UTI? 0.1 percent? Those are both statistically significant, but there’s a world of difference. In fact, the published study reported that the risk of recurrent infection was reduced by approximately 33 percent. Including this quantitative information would greatly strengthen the release.
The release says only that taking cranberries as a health supplement is “low risk.” And that’s true. But that doesn’t mean that it’s no risk. For example, the University of Maryland notes that one of the chemicals found in cranberries can increase the risk of kidney stones for some people — that’s valuable information for readers who have a history of kidney stones. Even if the harms are minimal, it is important to note that fact explicitly.
The release notes that the journal article is a meta-analysis of 28 studies, which involved close to 5,000 patients. That’s good, but not quite good enough — a little more information was needed. For example, what sort of studies are we talking about? How many were randomized controlled trials (the gold standard) and how many were observational? The release doesn’t need to provide details on all 28 studies, but it should tell readers whether any of the studies used placebo, were double-blind, etc.
No disease mongering here. The release refers to a UTI as a “potentially debilitating infection,” but given that UTIs can lead to kidney damage or sepsis, that’s not inaccurate.
This is satisfactory, yet the release could have been more transparent about the organization that issued the release. The study itself was supported by a Portuguese university and a Portuguese bank, which is noted in the release. However, the release lists a PR firm as the contact but includes a quote from the director of the Cranberry Institute and a summary of the Institute as background, without ever mentioning the group’s relationship to the study. After looking at the Cranberry Institute’s website it’s clear that the trade group has worked with the PR firm previously on news releases. Why not explain the Cranberry Institute’s interest in the research?
There are a number of lifestyle changes, in addition to modifying one’s cranberry consumption, that can reduce the risk of UTIs. For example, increasing one’s water intake or changing one’s form of birth control.
In addition, there are medical interventions such as use of vaginal estrogen preparations (for post-menopausal women) and taking an antibiotic preventively after intercourse.
The story doesn’t address this, but it can be assumed that most (if not all) readers will be familiar with the availability of products containing cranberries. Ergo, we’ll rate this as not applicable. It’s worth noting that the release gives readers little idea of what sort of cranberry products a patient could — or should — use to lower their risk of a UTI.
This is not the first journal article to review the available research on whether cranberry consumption can help to prevent recurrent UTIs — only the most recent. See, for example, previous reviews from 2012 and 2007. The release does not refer to these previous reviews or make clear how this most recent review article advances our understanding of the subject.
As with the conflict-of-interest section, this earns a satisfactory rating, but includes some odd language that is worth noting. First of all, there is no unjustifiable language in regard to the study itself — thus the satisfactory rating. However, the release also quotes the director of an industry-funded organization, who notes that this research “revitalizes the enthusiasm for cranberry products year-round.” The relevant paragraph comes as a distinct non sequitur and gives the release the tone of an advertisement, rather than an attempt to raise awareness of recent health research findings.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Excelente conversación entre @garyschwitzer de @HealthNewsRevu y @marynmck sobre exageración y #COVID19 en el excelente MOOC de @utknightcenter. Vale la pena verlo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgXiPojtg4&feature=youtu.be
Words of real wisdom, as usual @garyschwitzer
And: “There were no details, charts, graphs, numbers, nothing published in a journal."
#Pharma chairman:“If you don’t put out data people will say why are you withholding the data?”
Well, yes, that is exactly what people are asking. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1264572399523180548
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.
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