This was an interesting update on the importance of vitamin D in human health, highlighting a recent meta-analysis on the topic. The reporter did a particularly nice job of including expert comments in the piece. It would have been stronger with a brief comment on potential harms of excess vitamin D intake, and with the presentation of absolute (not just relative) benefit data where possible.
The story also let some researchers get away with some enthusiastic quotes that seemed to cry out for balance:
Perhaps the better summary would be a line that appears far earlier in the story: "Past experience means there is some need to be cautious about vitamins."
Nonetheless, overall this was a good job of reporting.
There was no estimate of the costs associated with obtaining the amounts of vitamin D mentioned in the story.
The story did an adequate job quantifying the benefits found in the meta-analysis: "Over an average of nearly six years, those who took vitamin D had a 7 percent lower risk of death from all causes than those who did not. Some scientists say more years of study would give better clues as to how large a role vitamin D plays in decreasing mortality. Others point out that while there was a statistically significant 7 percent drop in mortality in Autier’s analysis, because of the size of the study that only accounted for a difference of 117 people who died in the control groups as compared with those who took vitamin D supplements."
The story made it appear as though any form of vitamin D were safe to consume in whatever dosage a reader might envisage and this is misleading. It mentioned "there is little evidence of vitamin D toxicity at levels under 10,000 IU a day", and while rare, there are cases of lethal doses of vitamin D that have been documented. The story could have explained that there are definite harms of excess vitamin D.
The story did an adequate job explaining the 18-study meta-analysis.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included comments from several researchers involved with investigating the benefits of vitamin D who were not connected to the authors of the highlighted study.
The story covered the various means for obtaining sufficient levels of vitamin D (food, sunshine, functional foods, and supplements).
It could have explained that the application of high SPF value creams and lotions blocks the body’s ability to convert sunlight into circulating vitamin D.
The story mentioned that commercially available vitamin D supplements were available, listed some food sources rich in vitamin D, as well as other foods which are fortified with the vitamin.
The story was clear that it was reporting on the results of a recently published meta-analysis of previously published data.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.