This is the kind of story that leaves consumers’ heads spinning – the "yes, it’s good for you…no it’s not" yin and yang of observational studies or – in this case – pooled analysis of past studies. But even if you make an argument for the value of reporting this (an argument we wouldn’t make), it’s tough to get over the issue of inaccurate language used to describe the results.
Not applicable – the cost of coffee is not in question.
As already stated, it’s inaccurate to talk about benefits of "lowering risk" with results from a study that can’t establish a causal link.
If a story like this is going to promote the benefits of coffee, it should at least wink in the direction of possible harms of drinking 5 or more cups of coffee per day. This story didn’t wink.
This is the biggest failing of this story. A study like this can’t establish causation. Yet the story repeatedly used causal language:
This isn’t just semantics. It’s a matter of accuracy. You can’t lower risk, cut risk, boost an effect or have a protective effect for something for which you haven’t proven a causal link.
We offer a long and detailed explanation of why this is important in our Toolkit section.
Not applicable – there really wasn’t any background given on the types of cancer in question.
No independent source was quoted. Someone could have commented on study methods. Someone could have commented on the context of all of the other coffee-cancer studies that have been done. Someone should have been interviewed for such perspective, but it doesn’t appear that anyone was – at least no such interviews appear in the story. We don’t like single-source stories in any form of journalism, least of all in health/medical stories.
There was some discussion of whether the association could be attributable to caffeine or fruit and vegetable consumption, and what was seen in tea drinkers. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for mentioning these other factors, although, again, inappropriate "protective" or "effect" language was used in this discussion.
Not applicable – the availability of coffee is not in question.
The story didn’t explain what is explained in the opening "Background" section of the published study: Only a few studies have explored the relation between coffee and tea intake and head and neck cancers, with inconsistent results. So this isn’t a first look at the question.
We can’t be sure if the story relied on a news release. We do know that no independent source was quoted.
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