Read Original Story

Diabetes study: Interventions help prevent disease


2 Star

Diabetes study: Interventions help prevent disease

Our Review Summary

The study upon which this story is based is very complicated and riddled with caveats. Some of the results baffle its authors. The study’s simple but narrow conclusion is this: A few years of diet and exercise education/support appears to reduce risk of type 2 diabetes in a high risk population over 10 years. 

But the story fails by not discussing the findings with experts who do understand it and could explain the implications and applications of the data. The story talks only to the proverbial Area Man and cribs written statements from two remote experts. That’s insufficient. One is tempted to suggest it’s the result of reporters not having enough time or newsroom support to do their jobs thoroughly.

The report also fails to connect the dots between the study and the readers. By failing to discuss costs and availability of lifestyle interventions–or to describe what kinds of interventions the study participants received–it misses a chance to serve its readers who, demographically speaking, are very likely to be in the high-risk group the study focuses on. 

The reporter should be commended for one thing: Including an anecdote from someone who has a family history of diabetes, participated in the program and. . .got diabetes anyway. Lifestyle helps him manage, but did not prevent, the disease. An excellent reality check.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Again, the story misses an opportunity to say how much it costs to participate in a diabetes prevention program–or, for that matter, to take metformin.

A creative story could then have compared those costs to the costs of managing diabetes. 

During a time when costs of health care are so much in the public’s mind, stories should always probe the question of costs vs benefits.  

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

We have two problems with how the study results were presented:

  1. As mentioned previously, it would have been good for the story to nod to the complexity and difficulty of the underlying data.
  2. The story only provided relative risk reduction figures – "..reduced the incidence of diabetes by 34 percent."  We want to know the absolute risk reduction figures, or, 34% of what? 

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story fails to mention the side effects of metformin, which include gastro-intestinal side effects that can inhibit compliance. A serious condition, lactic acidosis, is a rare but significant side effect. It’s contraindicated for people with kidney disease, congestive heart failure and a few other conditions.   

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The study on which the story is based follows a complicated protocol with a three-year randomized, placebo-controlled phase and 7 years of follow up. During the follow-up phase all participants followed were offered lifestyle interventions. As a result, as the authors admit, it’s hard to draw firm conclusions beyond the simplest top-line assertion that lifestyle intervention and metformin appear to reduce or delay diabetes in high-risk patients. 

The story could have been clearer about the complexity and limitations of the study, and the fact that the researchers themselves cannot explain some of the findings. [The NIH press release did.]

Still, the story receives a satisfactory rating, if barely.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of type 2 diabetes.


Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The sourcing in this story is very thin. The only live source is a study participant.

The quote from a local doctor involved with the study comes from a written statement. The second quote is from an editorial published with the study in Lancet.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The basic options for reducing risk of diabetes–lifestyle changes and medication–are built into the study design.

But the story fails to describe the lifestyle modifications in sufficient detail. How often did people exercise? What did they eat? How compliant were they? Readers should have had a few details. 

The story could have also mentioned the growing evidence on weight loss and bariatric surgery as ways to prevent type 2 diabetes. 


Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t mention how and where diabetes prevention programs are available.

Lifestyle-modification diabetes prevention programs are a staple offering of hospitals, community centers, insurance companies and corporate wellness programs. The article could at least have mentioned this to allow readers to follow up if they wanted to. 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


No claim of novelty is made for the lifestyle or drug interventions.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


There’s no evidence the story depended on information in the press release.

Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.