This story does a good job of reporting on the research methods and findings. However, the research itself has some methodological concerns that could have (should have?) been examined more closely in the story. For example, one might question the plausibility that the benefits of taking fish oil supplements for only 3 months could extend to 1 year. These results may have been confounded by the fact that patients were allowed to take antidepressants and other medications. One might also wonder about the psychiatric state of the study population because researchers note that the risk of becoming psychotic over the course of 1 year is approximately 40%. This is considerably higher than that seen in the placebo group. Further, the results only apply to a small sample of children and young adults in a controlled clinical setting and are not generalizable. A limitation of this story is that it did not provide insights from an independent expert who could have highlighted the limitations of the research on which the story was based.
Schizophrenia-like illnesses can be devastating especially if untreated so the use of a dietary supplement that is widely available could be quite helpful. If replicated in a larger study, this would be quite a boon for such high-risk youth. The eye catching headline is followed by a reasonable summary and discussion of the study – although we yearned for more scrutiny of the methodology.
Estimated costs of fish oil supplements, approximately $0.40 per day, are provided.
Potential benefits reported in the research study, that significantly fewer patients became psychotic after taking fish oil supplements, are summarized in this story. Specifically, only 5% of participants who took fish oil transitioned to a psychotic disorder compared with 28% in the placebo group. It also indicates that there is generally a positive risk-benefit ratio with fish oil supplementation. Absolute numbers were given, along with the number needed to treat (NNT). These are big plus factors for th is story.
While fish oil supplements are generally recognized as safe, the story does not provide the reader with potential side effects which can be gastrointestinal and include blood clotting problems, particularly for people taking blood thinners. The story states: "Side effects of antipsychotics, including sexual dysfunction and weight gain, are troubling to young people, Amminger said. Fish oil, recommended for heart health, is more acceptable to patients with warning symptoms.
Our evaluaton of this criterion is complicated, but we think for good reason.
This story does a good job of summarizing the research methods and results in detail – mentioning t hat this was placebo-controlled and that there was random assignment to the study groups. The story could have also mentioned that this is a high quality, double-blinded study, meaning that the researchers and the patients were unaware of the treatment assignment to active fish-oil or to placebo. That’s a strength of the study that story didn’t mention. Bu the story also could have emphasized that this is quite a small study and the results were much better than could be predicted based upon previous research.
We also notice the inclusion of study subjects with cannabis use disorders–and there is reasonable evidence that heavy cannabis use can correlate with or precipitate first psychotic episodes. The authors did not report on potentially confounding use of cannabis after randomization. It is possible that the way they treated dropouts was not optimally conservative. Had dropouts in the placebo group been considered as healthy while those in the treatment group as worsened, then they could claim high rigor.
These are some of the things we look for in evaluating the quality of the evidence.
In balance, we’ll give this story the benefit of the doubt, while alerting readers to other factors to consider when evaluating studies.
This story describes schizophrenia as a "severe mental illness that strikes adolescents and young adults. About 2. 4 million Americans have the disorder…" But this study concerned only a few very high risk, highly selected patients evaluated at a busy medical center. So the story over-generalizes the applicability of the study. And beyond this, the story states that all the subjects who went on to meet criteria for one of the endpoints had "become psychotic or completely out of touch with reality." Could this be an overly dramatic description of the progression to an episode of psychosis that may last no more than a week? Granted, these are fines lines of semantics and interpretation, but we think stories need to employ a level of healthy skepticism that would raise some of these questions.
This story is based upon interview with the principal scientist who conducted research and interviews with 3 independent experts.
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion because it did seek and present different expert perspecitves.
However, all of the experts expressed a positive view of the research findings. The main limitation of this story is that it did not provide insights from an independent expert who could have highlighted the limitations of the research on which the story was based and who could have presented an alternative point of view – the kind of perspective we can easily raise.
This story does compare treatment with fish oil supplements to an alternative treatment with antipsychotic medications. In addition, the story reports on potential harms of treatment with antipsychotic medication. It is not known whether this dietary supplement is as good as or worse than antipsychotic medication in this setting as they have not been compared in a head-to-head comparison.
It’s clear in the story that fish oil supplements are taken by many people for health reasons.
Other studies have examined the role of omega-3 PUFAs for treatment of patients with schizophrenia with inconsistent results. We didn’t hear about that in this story.
There’s no evidence that this story relied on a news 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