Special diet doesn’t help kids with autism in small study
Reviewed By
Rating
Special diet doesn’t help kids with autism in small study
Our Review Summary
Even in a short (491-word) story, there was a good explanation of how the research was done – with appropriate caveats about how small was the study sample.
Why This Matters
There have been so many claims made about an autism-diet link. It is important to report on new evidence in this field.
Criteria
Not Applicable
Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss costs of the diet, but that doesn’t seem particularly vital.
Satisfactory
The story simply states that the diet free of cereal grains and dairy products did not improve symptoms.
Satisfactory
The story explains that he researchers reported finding "no adverse changes in behavior after the snacks containing wheat, milk or both" and again emphasized that this was a small study.
Satisfactory
First, the story emphasized that this was a small study.
Second, it explained why the "scientists say theirs is the most tightly controlled autism diet study so far." Good explanation of how the study was done.
Third, the story quoted one observer questioning what might have been found if the study had been tweaked a bit.
Satisfactory
No disease-mongering. A sidebar gives prevalence estimates and cites the source of the statistics.
Satisfactory
The story turned to one pediatrician, who, while having trained with the lead researcher, also raised a question about the study.
Not Applicable
Not applicable. There really wasn’t a new approach being tested.
Satisfactory
The story explains that "up to a third of children with autism are put on special diets like the one tested."
Satisfactory
The story makes clear that this is one of several studies that have been done on questions of an autism-diet link.
Satisfactory
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 8 of 8 Satisfactory
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