An egregious headline shouts "Resveratrol May Slow Aging in Humans." But 10 people took the active substance in the trial and the only outcomes reported in the story were intermediate or surrogate markers – blood levels of various "pro-inflammatory markers." Read Dr. Michael Kirsch’s excellent blog post, "Evidence-based Medicine in Disguise: Beware the Surrogate!" This is exactly the kind of story he describes when he wrote, "Why do some medical studies, which achieve breaking news status, often fall so short of our expectations?"
Gullible people may jump at anti-aging stuff in the news. This study is far from being ready for prime-time – and so was the story.
No discussion of the cost of the supplements used in the study. Doesn’t cost matter?
How many of the 10 people taking resveratrol had changes in "pro-inflammatory markers"? All of them? Half of them? How big were the changes? How meaningful were the changes? We weren’t told any of this.
Anything we put in our mouths has the potential to cause harm – a concept not recognized in this story.
The story called the study results "promising" and said, as a matter of fact, that "resveratrol suppresses inflammation." But deeper in the story one of the researchers said "something in the extract other than resveratrol" may have been the reason for the anti-inflammatory effects.
So which is it?
The story never addressed the limitations of drawing conclusions from a study that had just 10 people in the active arm of the trial taking the resveratrol supplements.
Intermediate endpoints or surrogate markers – such as blood levels of "pro-inflammatory markers" do NOT equate to "may slow aging" as the headline suggests. Yet the story made the leap to say that "resveratrol reduces inflammation in humans that could lead to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes."
But let’s drop back to a bigger picture: Shouldn’t we introduce at least a line in the story about whether aging is a disease requiring treatment? This is the way the story was framed – appearing in WebMD’s "Healthy Aging Health Center" with four mentions of aging in the short story.
Only two authors of the study were quoted – no independent expert source was cited.
Since the story framed this primarily as an anti-aging therapy – with possible impact on heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes thrown in – it would have been helpful for readers to be reminded about proven approaches to any of these conditions. But the story gave no such comparisons.
The story says that resveratrol can be found in common food sources. But the study was about resveratrol supplements in pill form and the story never explained to readers whether these were available. Are they at the corner drug store or health food store? Are they experimental? The story should have explained.
The story discussed a little bit of past research, suggesting that interest in resveratrol is not new.
Not applicable because we can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release. We do know that no truly independent source was quoted in the story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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