The story missed an opportunity to explain the inherent limitations in drawing conclusions from such an observational study. And its use of relative risk reduction figures is bothersome. Why not just give the absolute numbers from each group in the study? That would be far more meaningful and helpful.
There could be boilerplate language that stories could use to start to educate readers about what observational studies CAN’T PROVE. In fact, we suggest some in a primer elsewhere on this site.
Not applicable. Not discussed, but it should be general knowledge that they’re relatively inexpensive.
Only relative risk reduction figures were used – "32% reduced risk." But readers should be told "32% of what?" What were the actual absolute numbers in the group that took the supplements versus the numbers in the group that didn’t take the supplements. Why is that so difficult to include? It would be far more meaningful than 32%.
Not applicable. No harms were discussed but this is not a serious issue in this case.
One good thing was the quote: "There is some limited evidence from my study and others that fish oil may be good for preventing breast cancer, but there is not sufficient evidence to make a public health recommendation right now," cautions study researcher Emily White, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
However, the story missed an opportunity to ever explain WHY a study like this is insufficient evidence. It never explained the inherent limitations in drawing conclusions from an observational study – something this story’s HealthDay competition did a better job on.
Four different sources were quoted – a strength of the story.
At the very least, the story included the fact that "Other supplements were not linked to breast cancer risk in the new study, including black cohosh, dong quai, soy, and St. John’s wort, which are often taken to relieve some of the symptoms of menopause."
The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question.
We were given some context by the following quotes:
and
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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