A 183-word story just can’t do much. And this story didn’t.
The NY paper clearly picked up the story from the BBC and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
But at the heart of the story was the improper and inaccurate use of causal language from an observational study that can’t establish causation, but only association. It is wrong when the story states, "The diet…has a positive effect on mood."
This kind of research news via briefs and pickups from other news organizations is a waste of time and space.
Costs of this diet were not discussed, but that’s ok.
We criticize any story that only uses relative risk reduction figures. This story used only a 30% relative risk reduction figure and then used a quote from the principal investigator saying, "Thirty percent is a large reduction in the risk…"
We expect the story to provide the answer to this question: "Thirty percent of what?"
Are there any harms of the Mediterranean diet? We’d never know from this story.
The story fails in almost every regard on the evidence, starting with the fact that it couldn’t even correctly state where the study was published. The story said it was in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was not. It was in the Archives of General Psychiatry. If any reader/consumer tried to track it down in JAMA – as the story led me to do – that reader would have wasted a lot of time – as I did.
But the story also failed to say anything about the limitations of such observational studies, or anything about how association does not equal causation. Yet it used words like "the diet…has a positive effect on mood." That is wrong. No causal link can be established by such a study.
No real discussion of depression, so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
No independent journalism took place. Only a single source was quoted – and that quote was picked up from another news organization.
A lot gets left out in a 183-word story. Forget about putting this idea into the context of other treatments for depression when such little space and effort is afforded the topic.
The availability of the Mediterranean diet is not in question.
No claims of novelty were made, so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
It’s not clear that there was any independent reporting that took place. The NY paper apparently just picked up the story from the BBC and copied even the erroneous information on where the study was published. This is as bad as relying on a news release, so we rule it unsatisfactory. Such 183-word research news via proxy is a waste of time and space.
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