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

Eat your blueberries! They may cut risk of diabetes and high blood pressure

Rating

1 Star

Eat your blueberries! They may cut risk of diabetes and high blood pressure

Our Review Summary

Lest anyone think we’re unfair to blogs or that we don’t appreciate the brevity embraced by many blogs, please note that this 1-star story ran 474 words.  Earlier today we posted a 5-star score for a story that ran only 262 words

It is the quality – not the quantity – of the words that matters.

 

Why This Matters

It’s hard to get by the opening line of this blog piece that says "Blueberries may be one of nature’s wonder drugs."  Evidence that comes largely from observational studies – or studies like the ones reported on here that included only 32 or 66 people – is not evidence that should be touted as proof of "wonder drugs." 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable. Costs of blueberries – or of the "daily dietary supplementation of bioactives in freeze-dried whole blueberry powder" – were not given.  But we don’t think this is a major issue.

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

Not Satisfactory

No quantification of benefit in the first study described – only that "participants’  insulin sensitivity increased."  How much did it increase?  What clinical significance did that or might it have?  This is what readers need to know – not just some surrogate marker

Regarding the second study, the story said "researchers saw a seven- to eight-point drop in the systolic blood pressure of patients who had been drinking the blueberry beverage."  Everyone got a 7-8 point drop?  Or was this the average decline?  And a decline from what starting point?  None of this was explained.  That’s inadequate. 

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

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  No harms were mentioned, but we’re not sure there were any worth mentioning in these small, short-term studies.  But we can’t give a satisfactory score for what wasn’t reported.

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

Not Satisfactory

Inadequate. 

First, the story never explained that the first study used not blueberries but "daily dietary supplementation of bioactives in freeze-dried whole blueberry power."  More than a matter of semantics, this raises questions about the whole premise of the article about "eating blueberries."  These study subjects did not eat blueberries.  That should have been explained.

Second, the story never mentioned what the researchers themselves wrote, that this study was not conclusive and that studies of longer duration were needed.

Third, the story never explained that the first study involved only 32 people – only 15 whom got the blueberry bioactive concoction. 

Finally, the story never addressed the inherent limitations in drawing any conclusions from such a small sample.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The second study mentioned in the story – the one about blueberries in people with "pre-hypertension" – never mentioned the significant concerns that have been raised in some corners about disease-mongering of "pre-hypertension."  Note, for example, the recent article in the BMJ by journalist Ray Moynihan, "Who benefits from treating prehypertension."  The story could have at least nodded in the direction of controversy about this diagnosis, rather than touting it as one more disease to be prevented by blueberry consumption.

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

Not Satisfactory

No independent sources were quoted – only the lead researchers. 

In addition, the first study was funded partially by the United States Highbush Blueberry Council, something the story should have explained. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There wasn’t even a line about other methods of lowering risk in those at increased risk of developing diabetes or high blood pressure. It wouldn’t have taken but a few words to satisfy this criterion.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story stated the newer study was of "daily consumption of blueberries."  That’s inaccurate and it’s pertinent to this availability criterion. It was a study of "daily dietary supplementation of bioactives in freeze-dried whole blueberry powder."  How available is this stuff outside a research setting?  What difference might that make over consumption of blueberries?  More than splitting hairs, this is an important clarification, and one this story didn’t provide.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story at least tried to put two newer studies into the context of "the body of research supporting the benefits of eating blueberries."  But we also think this phrase is too simplistic and potentially misleading. Nonethless we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.

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

Not Applicable

Not applicable. We can’t be sure of the extent to which this blog post may have relied on a news release. We know we saw some of the exact same quotes in other places, suggesting they didn’t come from interviewing the sources.

Total Score: 1 of 7 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.