Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of vision loss in the elderly. There is no cure for AMD and once the vision is lost it cannot be regained. However, there is hope that AMD can be prevented or the rate of loss slowed using vitamin supplementation.
This story reports on a new study showing that women who took a specific combination of b-vitamin supplements had a lower risk of developing AMD after 7 years. The story does a good job of describing potential conflicts of interest of the quoted experts, one of whom is not involved in the research or funded by the vitamin manufacturer. The story adequately represents the availability and novelty of the supplements, although it is not clear if this particular combination of vitamins is available and if so, if they are available over the counter or by prescription only.
The story quantifies the number of cases of AMD in the vitamin group as well as the control group. The story should have provided a denominator for these numbers so that the reader can get a sense of the size of the risk.
The story could have been improved by describing the cost of the vitamins as well as potential harms. While vitamins are generally safe, the FDA does not regulate supplements and therefore there is no guarantee of strength, purity or safety of the product. Furthermore there are some important contraindications and consumers should talk with their doctor before taking the vitamins.
The story does not mention the cost of the vitamin supplements.
The story quantifies the number of cases of AMD in the vitamin group as well as the control group. The story should have provided a denominator for these numbers so that the reader can get a sense of the size of the risk.
The story does not mention any harms of b-vitamin supplements. While they are generally safe, the FDA does not regulate supplements and therefore there is no guarantee of strength, purity or safety of products. Furthermore there are some important contraindications and consumers should talk with their doctor about before taking the vitamins.
The story adequately describes the current study and discusses some of its strengthes and weaknesses. The story does a particularly good job of describing the study design, the sample size and duration of follow-up.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of AMD. The story should have explained that there are two types of AMD: dry and wet. Dry AMD is more common, progresses more slowly and may respond to vitamin supplementation, whereas wet AMD, although more rare, progresses rapidly and may not respond to vitamins.
The story quotes an expert who is not related to the study or employed by the vitamin manufacturer. The story does a good job of describing potential conflicts of interest of the quoted experts.
The story mentions smoking cessation and laser treatment as alternatives. The story however might have mentioned the other prevention methods listed on the National Eye Institute website: control of diet, exercise, weight, and blood pressure.
Clearly vitamin-b supplements are available, however the story should have described whether this particular combination of vitamins is available and if so, if they are available over the counter or by prescription only.
The story adequately represents the novelty of taking vitamins for AMD, which is not a new idea.
Given the fact that an independent expert was interviewed, it’s safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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