We were frankly a bit surprised at the number of stories on this study – this one even being filed well before the paper was even presented at the Curopean Society of Cardiology Congress in Stockholm. Was it that earth-shattering? However, at least this story did seek independent perspectives as part of their story – even if filed early. (Also see reviews of AP and Reuters.)
The ending quote is the money quote: "..this is by no menas the final word." It never is.
Not applicable. The margarines used in the study are not commercially available, so we can understand why cost of these formulations wasn’t given (even if the story didn’t disclose that the these were special non-commercially-available products).
It would have been interesting to learn how the costs of omega-3 fatty acid fortified margarine compares to a comparable, unfortified product.
Adequate. The story mentioned that there did appear to be a subcategory of benefit in women who consumed the ALA fortified margarine. It didn’t to mention the benefits seen in individuals with diabetes from the use of fortified margarine.
While mentioning that there didn’t appear to be any benefit from the use of fortified margarine, the story neglected to report that there also didn’t seem to be any overt harm from the used of the fortified margarine. Even the absence of harm is worth mentioning. We look for discussions of benefits, harms and costs in all stories and don’t see same often enough.
The story did an adequate job reporting on how the study was done and on some of the factors that might explain or influence the findings.
The story did not engage in over disease mongering.
The story included comments from several individuals without direct ties to the study reported on but with active research programs examining the potential of benefit from omega-3 fatty acids.
The story addressed some other approaches albeit indirectly: "The scientists focused on patients who were already taking medications to control blood pressure, cholesterol and potential clotting. So, the researchers theorized that the poor performance of the supplements may simply reflect the overwhelming power of the medications."
There was no discussion of other things that have been shown to lower the risk of future coronary events in those who have had a heart attack beyond taking medications. Even one line offering such context would have been helpful.
The story was not clear that the margarines used in the study reported on were formulated specifically for use in the study and are not commercially available. Nor did it explain – as other stories did – that there are similar products already on the market.
The story did not mention that the specific margarines used in this study were formulated for use in the study and are not commercially available.
No evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
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