This is a story about a study that won’t be presented for two months yet – about a health benefit that is seen in individuals who self-report consuming a Mediterranean diet. It was good that the story pointed out "The study shows association, not causation" but the explanation of this was a bit awkward and incomplete. It also never answered what "36% less likely to have areas of brain damage" really meant. 36% of what? And what clinical significance might that have? There can be a difference between being able to find something and whether that something has significance in people’s lives.
Dementia is a major concern for older people. However, the gist of the story – that the "Mediterranean diet may help prevent dementia" – as the headline states – is something an observational study can’t prove. That’s what the story could have better explained.
Another not applicable criterion for this story. Costs not mentioned, but also hard to pin down costs of this diet.
The story specified that those following a Mediterranean diet were ‘36% less likely to have areas of brain damage’. This is an inadequate presentation of information because the reader has no sense of how common the thing prevented might be (36% of what?) and also how well this measurement of brain damage correlates with a clinical parameter of concern to real people. There can be a difference between being able to find something and whether that something has significance in people’s lives.
There was no discussion of harms, but we’re not sure of any from this diet – so we judge this criterion Not Applicable in this case.
The story highlighted the results of a study to be presented two months from now. This means that the results have not been peer reviewed. This should have been explained. Even then there are weaknesses in stories about presentations at scientific meetings. See our primer. We appreciate that the story stated that the study showed an association but does not prove causality – but think the story could have used better language to explain this, such as:
“But readers shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this diet can prevent dementia. That’s a conclusion that such an observational study can’t reach. Other factors in the study subjects’ lives may have explained the findings. Only a randomized clinical trial can establish cause-and-effect. That doesn’t mean that the statistical link (association) isn’t real; it just means a study like this can’t prove that the diet had a preventive effect.”
The story came close at times – dancing around these messages – but never quite clearly communicating the significance of the limitation of an observational study.
No disease-mongering of Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia in this story.
The story has a quote from a clinician who does not appear to be associated with the research to be presented that was reported on.
The story could have at least briefly mentioned other approaches to risk reduction. For example, control of hypertension and use of daily aspirin to reduce risk of vascular disease in the brain. It doesn’t require many words in a story to put one area of research into context of other research in the field.
There isn’t any question about the availability of the ‘mediterranean diet’ so this criterion is not applicable for this story.
The story appropriately tried to put this research into the context of other resarch on the Mediterranean diet and health.
Although there is some language in the story that is very similar to that found in a news release, we rule this satisfactory because an independent expert was quoted, indicating that the story didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release.
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