Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo), a botanical dietary supplement, is widely used by people hoping to improve memory and those who want to prevent or treat dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. However, scientific research to prove these benefits has not been convincing. Now the results of a research study, called the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory study, have convincingly shown that ginkgo does not stop older people from developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. This article does an excellent job of reporting important details of the study in depth. For example, it included that 3,000 people 75 and over who took the usual ‘dose’ of ginkgo (240 mg) each day were followed for 6 years. The piece was particularly strong in providing absolute differences, citing an array of sources, and providing context about the funding agency and how the results differed from prior studies. Well done.
Yes, this story reported that a four month supply of ginkgo cost about $10.
After reading this article there is no mistaking that ginkgo is not beneficial for preventing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease in older adults. The absolute differences in outcomes between groups was reported.
There has been concern in the medical community that ginkgo could increase the risk of blood clots and stroke. This is of particular concern in people taking warfarin, a drug that is intended to reduce the risk of blood clots and stroke. Remarks from the lead investigator indicate that ginkgo appears to be relatively safe. However, the investigator also notes that the new study could not definitively answer the question about risk of strokes. Directly after these comments, the article explicitly states that people on warfarin should not take ginkgo. This is not the case. However, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) indicate that caution should be exercised when taking warfarin and ginkgo. But they do not definitively state that ginko should not be taken. We’ll give the article a passing grade on this one.
This story provided an in depth review of the new clinical evidence relating to the use of ginkgo. For example, details of the study were reported in a manner that was easy to understand. The reader was able to see the superior design of this new study compared to previous studies without this being explicitly presented in the article.
This story did not fail prey to disease mongering. In fact, it accurately refuted disease mongering reports that are often found for the use of ginkgo as a memory aid.
This article meets all of the criteria for providing good sources of information. The source of the new research is given. All potential differing opinions are presented through interviews with the lead investigator, a credible independent expert, and a representative of herbal products.
This story did not mention that there are currently no treatments that can prevent dementia or improve mental abilities in people with mild cognitive impairment. The story could have easily mentioned this. It should have indicated that there are a few medications that can temporarily slow decline in a small number of people. They should have also added clearly stated that unfortunate news that results from medication are minimal.
This story accurately reported the widespread availability and use of ginkgo is in the U.S. The story noted that annual sales of ginkgo are estimated to be more than $100 million dollars per year.
This article does not pretend that ginkgo is a new treatment. It indicates up front that it has long been promoted as a memory aid.
This article did not rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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