This segment reports on a study that describes a link between low vitamin D levels and increased risk of breast cancer and poor outcomes. It is a good example of how a study with narrow implications can be used to discuss the limits of current scientific knowledge and treatment recommendations. It’s also an illustration of a reporter resisting the urge to exaggerate the importance of the findings.
The segment does several things well:
The segment has two signficant weaknesses: It uses only one source, the program’s physician/reporter; and it fails to help women understand the size of the underlying risk of breast cancer spreading and killing.
Because the segment does not make specific treatment recommendations, cost is not an issue.
The segment reports that women with lower levels of vitamin D in their blood were 94 percent more likely to have their cancer spread and 73 percent more likely to die.
But it faiils to report the underlying incidence of metastasis or death, making it difficult for viewers to understand true magnitude of the risk.
The segment warns against the possible harms of high doses of vitamin supplements and overexposure to the sun.
The segment is based on a study to be presented at a medical meeting and published in a major journal. It’s a small, observational study that links low blood levels of vitamin D to higher risk and worse outcomes for breast cancer.
The segment is careful not to overstate the implications of the study and does not invite viewers to overrespond to the findings.
The story does not exaggerate the findings of the study or the benefits of treatment.
The segment relies on only one source–the correspondent described as "our doctor."
While she does a good job of explaining that the implications of the study are unclear and the science in the area of vitamin D is controversial, one source isn’t sufficient to provide context and balance.
Because the segment carefully refrains from recommending treatments, it isn’t necessary for it to provide alternative ways of lowering breast cancer risk.
Vitamin D supplements, sunshine and foods with vitamin D are easily available enough that this report does not need to specify.
The segment does not suggest that boosting vitamin D intake with supplements, food or sunshine is novel.
There is no evidence that the segment draws excessively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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