Any story with a clever headline announcing surprising results of a study involving a simple household item immediately raises concerns that the findings are being distorted, trivialized or sensationalized.
But this report on a study suggesting chewing gum may speed recovery after colon surgery is responsible and informative. More specifically:
It’s based on a credible study published in a top-shelf medical journal
It discusses the results in enough detail so a reader can appreciate the limitations of the findings
It quotes an independent expert skeptical about the findings, who describes alternatives to the studied treatment
Although it’s based on a meta-analysis, whose findings should not drive treatment decisions, the treatment is one which people are not going to try themselves. This eliminates the risk of people treating themselves based on inconclusive findings.
It’s worth pointing out that a 101-word edit of this article, published by the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, fails nearly all of the HealthNewsReview.org criteria. That brief squeezes in all of the positive findings but none of the caveats or context that help a reader determine the value of the study.
This is not a failure of editing text so much as it is failure in editorial decision-making. If only 101 words will fit, there’s probably better use to make of that space rather than a provocative, one-sided report on a health issue.
The story says gum costs "a few pennies." The study itself puts the cost at 4 cents per stick.
The report does a good job of handling the statistics, with proper caveats. The story reports:
The story does include a comment from a physician who warns that someone chewing gum after surgery may swallow air, which can create problems.
The story explains that the findings come from an analysis of five studies, alluding to the fact that this was a meta-analysis. The story could have given a line about the quality of such evidence.
The story does not exaggerate the complications following colon surgery.
The story is based on a credible meta-analysis published in a top-shelf journal. The report includes comments from both a study co-author and a skeptical independent expert.
The independent expert interviewed offers an alternative to chewing gum to speed recovery–introducing liquids and then foods after surgery. He also recommends avoiding the use of pain killers to speed recovery time.
The availability of sugarless chewing gum is not in dispute.
The story makes no claims for the novelty of the treatment. By indicating the meta-analysis is based on five previous studies, the article implies it’s been used before.
The story does not draw excessively from the 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