Take a concept that the story tells us is not new, tell us that most previous research was in mice, and now add an observational study in people that can’t establish cause-and-effect. And what do you have? A cocktail for hype that doesn’t educate readers about why such studies – while possibly important – don’t warrant some of the language in the headline or the body of the article.
Observational studies like this have limitations. Such limitations should always be noted. One of the biggest is that they can’t establish cause and effect. So why put the tease, "Could drinking help thwart rheumatoid arthritis?" in the headline – a question the story and the study CAN NOT answer.
Not applicable. The cost of alcohol is not in question.
Too vague. Terms were used such as:
No discussion of harms of alcohol consumption.
Poor job on this. Little exploration or explanation of the limitations of such an observational study. This story only said "there are limitations to any research which asks patients to report their exposure to something." Such as? Why not even one little example? For comparison, a MedPageToday story reported:
That’s what we’re looking for in such a story. That’s what we didn’t get in this one.
We felt disease-mongering in the air when the story didn’t explain what degree of rheumatoid arthritis the subjects had. In fact, at one point the author referred to simply "joint inflammation." Well one man’s joint inflammation is not another man’s rheumatoid arthritis. So this potentially disabling condition was treated as just one huge bucket of a diagnosis in this story, whereas it is a wide and varied spectrum of disease and impacts.
One apparently independent expert was quoted. We weren’t told why he was quoted or whether he was involved in the research. But he’s not listed as an author of the study, so we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt – by a hair.
Not even a word about other approaches to treating rheumatoid arthritis. Even a line may have satisfied this criterion.
Not applicable. The availability of alcohol is not in question. In fact, we need a drink after reading another story that conflates association with causation.
The story explained "This actually isn’t a new concept" but that most previous research was in mice.
Does not appear to have relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.