This is a story reporting on a first examination of fans to try to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). While the story framed the new observation in terms like “seemed to lower the risk” and “seems to suggest,” this new finding could have been put more clearly in the context of the hierarchy of factors which reduce the chance of SIDS. The story also failed to explain anything about the type of fan or “dose’” of fan use (i.e. box, oscillating, facing into the room, blowing on the child or not, moving air in or out of the window). So readers got no insight that would enable them to take action. The fact that the study upon which the story is based didn’t reveal such details is no excuse; the story needed that information or needed to explain why it wasn’t in the study. This study almost feels like an early Phase I drug trial in which the exact dose and benefit have not yet been determined. The story could have framed it that way. It’s a case where the potential flaws of a study design (case-control study) are important and could have been explained.
The story didn’t need to comment on the cost of fans or the electricity to power them.
The story reported that 3% of babies who died of SIDS had fans on in their rooms, while 12% of babies who did not die of SIDS has fans on in their rooms. This is actually a very confusing way of reporting this sort of information but is a side effect of the study design which can only provide information about the proportion of those with the exposure by outcome. From these numbers, one could come to understand that more babies who had fans on in their rooms did not die of SIDS but that having a fan on in the room did not prevent all SIDS deaths.
The story would have been improved by explaining that the ‘benefit’ also varied quite widely by other coinicident circumstances. This is valuable to explain to readers so that they could appreciate that reducing risk of SIDS depends on many factors.
There was no discussion of potential harms associated with fan use in the room where an infant sleeps. While the study on which this story was based may not have commented on potential harms, the story should have probed further. Few (if any) things affecting one’s health come without tradeoffs.
The terms used in this story to describe the potential for benefit were appropriately cautious. While it did include quotes indicating that more research was necessary, the story did not do an adequate job of explaining that the results of this one study should have been considered as preliminary, even if they are in line with previous theory. The results are possibly flawed given a study design that is better suited for generating hypotheses than for establishing causal links. There are problems with recall bias in case-control studies. The fact that the report was lacking in detail about how the fans were used or anything about what approach is best is a problem worth mentioning.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story drew from a published paper and comments from the senior author of the paper and another expert in the field without ties to the authors of the paper reported on.
The second sentence of the published study lists some of the factors which have been shown to be associated with decreased risk of sudden infant death. It may have helped for the story to include all the factors mentioned in the paper and perhaps provide readers with some insight as to the magnitude of benefit seen.
That said, one problem with the story is that it failed to detail anything about the types of fan, how they were set up, or explain why these details were lacking.
The story didn’t need to comment on the widespread availability of fans.
However the study did not report details about the type of fan or ‘dose’ of fan use (i.e. box, oscillating, facing into the room, blowing on the child or not, moving air in or out of the window). This should have been mentioned in the story.
As mentioned in the story, the study on which the story is based made the claim that this was the first time fan use in the room where an infant sleeps was examined as a factor affecting the risk of sudden infant death.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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