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/.
Read Original Release

Release scores on cholesterol-lowering potential of barley; punts on cardiovascular benefit

Rating

3 Star

Barley lowers not one but two types of 'bad cholesterol', review suggests

Our Review Summary

barley seedsThis news release summarizes a meta-analysis of studies measuring the cholesterol-lowering properties of barley. The analysis found that barley consumption was associated with lower cholesterol but its effectiveness in reducing risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) is implied, not proven. The release would have been much stronger had it quantified benefits and been more descriptive of what the research actually found:  that barley can modify various cholesterol levels, but whether this contributes to lower CVD risk is still an open question.

 

Why This Matters

This is important research that is essentially gathering together (and meta-analyzing) randomized trials that examine the cholesterol-lowering potential of barley β-glucan on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB).  Since modifications of these cholesterol markers may contribute to CVD risk reduction, they are worth studying.  It is important,  however, that dietary or nutritional studies include appropriate caveats, and not claim effects that are not seen in the research.

Criteria

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Barley, like oats or other grains are cheap and plentiful. Mentioning their cost in the story is unlikely to be an important factor.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

There was no quantification of benefits. You have to go back to the original study to learn this:  “A median dose of 6.5 and 6.9 g/day of barley β-glucan for a median duration of 4 weeks significantly reduced LDL-C (MD = − 0.25 mmol/l (95% CI: − 0.30, − 0.20)) and non-HDL-C (MD = − 0.31 mmol/l (95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.23)), respectively, with no significant changes to apoB levels, compared with control diets.”  It would have been nice to have had these reductions contextualized in a form that makes sense to the readers.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Applicable

There are unlikely to be harms for most people if they increased their barley consumption, but upping their daily intake could also lead to gastrointestinal problems in some people. The recommended daily consumption of barley in Canada is 3 grams but the study recommends that it be increased to 6.5 to 7 grams daily. People diagnosed with Celiac disease have most likely already been advised that consuming barley (as well as other foods containing gluten) can cause complications.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The claim here is unsubstantiated:  “‘After looking at the evidence, we can also say that barley is comparably effective as oats in reducing overall risk of cardiovascular disease’ said Dr. Vuksan.'”

Were oats compared directly with barley in this meta-analysis? No.

The study in question was a meta-analysis of  more than a dozen studies on barley. It was a well conducted meta-analysis with pretty high-level evidence. The release does not mention that and muddies the waters by saying this was the first study of barley on several types of cholesterol. Well, if this is a meta-analysis of 14 studies on this question, how can it be the first?

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No obvious disease mongering.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

There’s no mention of funders and financial ties to industry which should always be disclosed as a potential conflict of interest. Several of the researchers involved have financial ties to both trade groups and corporations, according to the published report. For example, one of the authors holds Canadian and U.S. patents on a medical use of viscous fiber for certain health conditions.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The release makes brief mention of barley in comparison to oats. It states that “barley is higher in fibre, has twice the protein and almost half the calories of oats, which are important considerations for those with weight or dietary concerns,”  We aren’t provided any quantification of the claim.

The release also skipped over some of the other common ways there are to lower cholesterol including medications, exercise, other foods and dietary supplements, and weight loss.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

We learn that barley is everywhere, readily available and ready to add to your food.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

We don’t think the release established the novelty of the research in the manner it’s claimed:

“It is the first study to look at the effects of barley and barley products on both LDL and non-HDL cholesterol in addition to apolipoprotein B, or apoB, a lipoprotein that carries bad cholesterol through the blood.”

How could it be the “first study” when it is looking at a group of studies?  Is it the first meta-analysis to examine this question? If so, that should be mentioned.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

The release doesn’t engage in sensationalist or unjustified language.

Total Score: 3 of 8 Satisfactory

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.