This story didn’t fare quite as well in our scoring as a competing Wall Street Journal story. However, neither story adequately explained what can actually and effectively be measured at 18 months of age that is compelling. Can anything definitively – pro or con – be said so early? Did the researchers get out ahead of themselves in reporting on this early interim phase when later followups are planned?
All of the issues discussed in this story – and in this research – the quest for "smarter babies," reduction of postpartum depression, and reduced risk of premature birth – are important issues that we think deserved a bit more detail.
No discussion of cost and we always think there should be.
On the "smarter babies" issue, the story reported "no cognitive difference at 18 months whether mothers received DHA supplements or placebos." Perhaps that’s sufficient on the one issue.
But then it also reported "the new study showed small reductions in postpartum depression in women with histories or high risk of depression." What does "small reductions" mean? Did it make much of a difference in women’s lives?
And which issue mattered more to women – "smarter babies" or postpartum depression?
The story used terms like "no harm…safe…and apparently has few downsides." Well, which is it? No harm or few downsides? And if the latter, then how few and of what kind? This is too vague and confusing.
This may also be an area in which products that are not as tightly regulated as prescription drugs carry a potential downside. Again, it’s hard to get real information about purity, quality standards and bioavailability for supplements.
Mixed bag on this criterion.
The story states that the new study was a "large study" – so maybe readers pick up on this and read into it that’s a good thing. And it says the new study was a "clinical trial." Conversely, it reported: "Some previous studies have suggested that DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil, can aid in a baby’s brain development if taken during pregnancy. But many of those studies were small or observed women already taking fish oil, who might be more health-conscious."
But then it provided no data when it opened a whole new issue at the very end of the story:
"Some studies, including the new report, suggest DHA supplementation in pregnancy reduces the likelihood of premature birth. And the new study showed small reductions in postpartum depression in women with histories or high risk of depression. Dr. Scott Stuart, a University of Iowa psychiatry and psychology professor, said his pregnant patients with mild to moderate depression had improved when taking DHA while seeing a counselor."
Because how you end a piece may be the most influential – and because this was the least questioning part of the entire story – we are swayed to rule this unsatisfactory.
No disease-mongering. Good quotes from chief of maternal-fetal medicine at a leading Boston hospital: “I think the market is running way out in front of the science.”
There were several independent sources quoted/cited in the story.
There was only a brief mention of alternatives on the postpartum depression issue – and that in the very last line: "“There’s no harm that we know of at all, in contrast to many antidepressants" – according to one doctor. But that is insufficient context and comparison.
Ditto for this issue: "Some studies, including the new report, suggest DHA supplementation in pregnancy reduces the likelihood of premature birth." But how does this evidence (no data given in the story) compare with other attemtps to do the same thing?
The widespread availability and use of fish oil is clear from the story. Although the story would have helped readers more by reporting on issues of purity, quality control, and difficulties for consumers in assessing the quality of a source or brand. This would have made it clear that this not a straightforward choice to just "take fish oil."
The past research on this topic was made clear.
It’s clear the story did not rely 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