NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Study: More omega-3 fats didn’t aid heart patients

Rating

5 Star

Study: More omega-3 fats didn’t aid heart patients

Our Review Summary

One of 3 stories we reviewed on this study (Reuters and HealthDay were the others), this one did raise some interesting thoughts about why the study failed to show a difference and reported on some of the other types of foods that are now commercially fortified with omega-3 fatty acids.

 

Why This Matters

 Health claims in food marketing require a great deal of scrutiny.  This new data casts some doubt on some past marketing practices. We’ll see how and if that changes – and if consumer behavior and health care advice changes at all. As a quote in the Reuters story suggests, don’t hold your breath waiting for such change.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

 As the products used in the study are not commercially available, there was no mention of their presumptive costs.

(It might have been interesting to explore how fortified margarines compare in cost to those which are not.)

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

 The story indicate that there did not appear to be any advantage from the use of the fortified margarines.  However – the study actually found a suggestion of a statistical benefit in the sub-population of individuals who had had a prior heart attack and who also had diabetes.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

 This is a correction of our originally-posted score on this criterion.  The story did, indeed, report that "there were no harmful side effects."

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Adequate description of the study and of its possible limitations.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No overt disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

 The story included quotes from sources not involved in the study.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

 The story mentioned the increasing number of foods on the shelves that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids and perhaps the results of this study will make readers question whether such fortification is actually value added.  While indicating that the people in the study were receiving optimal medical therapy, the story did not mention other possible means by which individuals who have had a heart attack can lower their chance of having another one. Even one line of such context would have been appreciated and helpful.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

 While indicating that Unilever makes an omega-3 fortified margarine, the story didn’t mention that the margarines used in the study were specifically formulated for the study and are not commercially available.  However – there are commercially available margarines that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

 Although the story was not clear that the margarines used in the study were prepared exclusively for use in the study, it did indicate that similarly fortified products are commercially available.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 9 of 9 Satisfactory

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.