This is a short piece on an experimental approach to improve management of type II diabetes. While providing background on the dietary component studied, it failed to adequately explain that it was studied for use in addition to, not instead of, current treatments. The study itself involved few study subjects and was of short duration, and the results have not yet been repeated. This means that these results are entirely preliminary and even if the effect is found to be repeatable, may not be applicable to all people with type II diabetes. The story provided so little information that it is not even possible for an interested reader to know whether or not this would be something to try on their own or talk with their doctor about.
The story failed to inform the reader about the amount of benefit they might hope to gain with this dietary addition or about any harms that might be associated with the use of this product.
Comments from individuals with expertise in the field might have covered the important points that were missing to enable readers to have some framework for understanding the merit of this seed for this purpose.
On the newspaper’s website, there was no explanation of where the 278-word story came from. Was it written by staff? Was it from a wire service? Was it from a news release?
There was no mention of cost.
While the story did mention that the improvement seen with salba was only slightly better than that seen with wheat bran, it did not provide numbers to help readers ascertain the magnitude of benefit observed.
The story did not mention any potential harms associated with the use of salba seeds, not even whether or not it tastes bad!
The story provided a little bit about the evidence it was discussing. It mentioned where the study had been published and included two of the limitations of the study, i.e. that the effect was followed for only 12 weeks, and that it worked only slightly better than wheat bran. However – the story omitted important details about the study, namely that individuals who participated in the study were well controlled type II diabetics, and that salba or wheat bran were added in addition to their ongoing medical and lifestyle treatment of their type II diabetes. The story also didn’t explain whether the study was randomized or if the the participants knew whether they were taking the salba or wheat bran, and that only a small number of individuals (20) actually participated in the study.
The story failed to provide information about the magnitude of benefit that was seen in this study.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story appears to be based on a report in Diabetes Care. There were no comments from independent experts included in this story to provide context for readers to understand the benefit that might be obtained.
The research was about the use of a plant seed as a component added to the diet of individuals with well controlled type II diabetes. As the story neglected to describe the study population, it failed to adequately describe who this ‘treatment’ might be used for, nor did it mention other interventions that this study population might benefit from.
The story described the availability of Salba.
This use of this seed as an adjuvant for management of type II diabetes appears to be novel.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No one is quoted in the story. A journal article is mentioned.
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