This BMJ news release suggests that a new study found a correlation between multivitamin use and reduced incidence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We commend the release for noting that the study findings show a correlation, not causation, and for making a call for more research. However, the largest drawback of the release is that it doesn’t provide any actual data from the study.
The release did call out some limitations of the research but would have been even stronger had it mentioned some very obvious differences between the group of mothers-to-be that took multivitamins and the expectant mothers who did not take supplements. The multivitamin group is more educated, in a higher socioeconomic group, has fewer smokers, are of more normal weight, more were born in Sweden and more were experiencing their first pregnancy. The presence of a higher percentage of women with overweight in the no vitamin group suggests that there are other nutritional factors that are unknown and may influence or increase the risk of having a child with ASD.
Environmental factors in autism spectrum disorder are an area of active research as the prevalence of diagnosis has doubled since the year 2000. (Genetic influences are also actively studied.) Because these disorders are developmental in nature, prenatal influences are of particular interest. Ideally, continued research on nutritional influences might someday lead to advice for pregnant women to reduce the chances of having a child with ASD.
The news release did not mention costs of vitamin supplements.
The news release did not describe the size of the benefit, saying only that multivitamin use “was associated with a lower likelihood of child ASD with intellectual disability.” How much of a lower likelihood? And what are the absolute numbers? We would like to know how many of the 273,107 mother-child pairs used vitamins and how many children were diagnosed with ASD in the vitamin-taking moms and the moms who didn’t take vitamins.
No mention of potential harms — or lack of harms, if that’s the case — from taking multivitamins or extra iron were mentioned in the release.
The news release does a good job at defusing any presumption of cause-and-effect with this second paragraph: “The researchers stress that their findings cannot establish cause and effect, but say they raise questions about a possible association that warrant further investigation.”
The release also discusses strengths (large sample size) and limitations (presence of confounding factors and uncertainty about dosing and timing of vitamins) of the study.
However, the release omits any actual data, which we already pointed out in the Benefits section.
The news release does not engage in disease-mongering. Autism spectrum disorders are simply described.
The news release makes no mention of either funding sources or potential conflicts of interest involving the study authors. This information is plainly provided in the journal article’s footnotes which lists the government funding sources and notes that “Researchers were independent from funders.”
The news release does not discuss that pregnant woman might achieve recommended vitamin intake via the food they eat.
The news release doesn’t mention availability of multivitamins, but we concede that supplements are as widely available as are drug stores.
The news release informs readers that previous work on maternal nutrition and ASD have been inconsistent and that this study used different and multiple analyses to assess the link.
The news release does not use unjustified language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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