This television morning show “Health Watch” segment discusses results of a recent study which showed that calcium supplements are effective in preventing fractures. These results seem to contradict the much publicized recent results from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which found that calcium supplementation does not have any affect on the risk of fractures. This story does adequately highlight the main difference between these two results – this study looked at the subgroup of women who were at least 80% compliant, whereas the WHI study looked at the overall study population.
While this story attempts to clear up the confusion in the seemingly contradictory results, the story doesn’t quantify benefits and it exaggerates the seriousness of osteoporosis and osteopenia (low bone mass). When we are told that “34 Million Americans have low bone mass,” there is no information on how is this defined. What is the seriousness of this condition? We are also told that “1 in 2 women will suffer a fracture in her lifetime.” How many of these fractures are attributable to osteoporosis or osteopenia? While these two statements may be factual, the manner in which they are presented overstates the problem and only serves to alarm the viewer.
The story does not mention if the supplements are available, if they are available over the counter and if you can buy them in the formulation used in the study (600mg twice a day). There are a lot of different kinds of calcium supplements available and the story should have provided the viewer with some guidance about which to choose. No harms are mentioned. In the study, the researchers found that constipation was a side effect of taking the calcium supplement. The story does not mention if the supplements are new or different from existing supplements.
The story does mention diet and weight bearing exercise as alternatives to calcium supplementation. However, more information about the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives should have been provided. Other options, such as exercises to improve stability and interventions to prevent falls, could also have been mentioned. No costs are mentioned and no independent sources are quoted.
People in television news may say they don’t have the time to address all of these issues. But between the words spoken on the air and those displayed onscreen in graphics, there were about 800 words in this story. We have five-star-rated stories elsewhere on this site that had as few as 529 words. It can be done.
No costs are mentioned.
The story doesn’t quantify benefits in any way.
No harms are mentioned. In the study, the researchers found that constipation was a side effect of taking the calcium supplement
The story does provide information about the nature of the study being reported. The story explains that this was a large, controlled trial and that benefits of calcium were found only in the compliant group, not in the overall study sample. The story also explains why these results are different from recent results from the Women’s Health Initiative.
The story exaggerates the seriousness of osteoporosis and osteopenia (low bone mass). When we are told that “34 Million Americans have low bone mass,” we have to wonder, how is this defined? What is the seriousness of this condition? We are also told that “1 in 2 women will suffer a fracture in her lifetime.” How many of these fractures are attributable to osteoporosis or osteopenia? While these two statements may be factual, the manner in which they are presented overstates the problem and only serves to alarm the viewer.
No independent sources are quoted.
The story does mention diet and weight bearing exercise as alternatives to calcium supplementation. However, more information about the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives should have been provided. Other options, such as exercises to improve stability and interventions to prevent falls, could also have been mentioned.
The story does not mention if the supplements are available, if they are available over the counter and if you can buy them in the formulation used in the study (600mg 2x/day).
The story does not mention if the supplements are new or different from existing supplements.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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