This story reports on the publication of a study in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association comparing honey to cough syrup or no treatment for upper respiratory infections in children ages 2 to 18. The study found a modest benefit to honey over no treatment and no difference between honey and cough medicine. The study is timely because of recent news about the potential harms of over-the-counter cough and cold preparations for younger children. It is also "cold and flu season", and many parents are no doubt grappling with ways to provide symptom relief. The story does a fine job of outlining the study, main findings, potential mechanism, and potential harms. A bit more detail about how the study quantified the main findings (cough reduction) would be helpful to readers. By how much did the children cough less or sleep better? Did treatment result in a shorter duration of symptoms?
Other than to describe honey as "cheap" the story does not discuss costs. However, because honey is a food product, prices are dependent on the store and source.
The story does not quantify the benefits of honey. By how much did the children cough less and sleep better? Did this result in a shorter duration of symptoms?
The story explains that honey may cause an allergic reaction and that, rarely, it contains bacteria.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study.
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of common colds.
The story does quote an independent expert in addition to the lead author of the study.
The story mentions cough medicine as the alternative.
Clearly honey and over-the-counter cough medicine are available.
The story mentions that using honey as a treatment is not a new idea.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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