This story is based on a study of just nine skilled college tennis players. The story provides no context, no data, no comparisons with related research.
In the firehose of health information that floods the American public every day, this story about trying to prevent "fatigue-induced decline" in just 9 elite tennis players just doesn’t seem to be worth the time or attention.
Not applicable. The cost of baking soda isn’t in question.
There were no detailed results reported in the story – none of the data that would explain whether blood tests or accuracy/velocity testing was significantly different between the treated and non-treated groups. So readers are given no sense of the scope of potential benefit.
There was no discussion of potential harms.
There was no discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from a study of just nine people. Or of two little trials a week apart.
The story didn’t discuss any of the limitations that the researchers themselves described:
Is "fatigue-induced decline" in tennis really something that requires treatment? Does a study in 21-year old Division I college tennis players have any direct relevance to the rest of the population? None of these questions were explored.
No independent perspective appeared in the story.
There was not even a line about other fatigue-fighting measures in tennis players, and no comparison of these new small-study results with anything else. It’s just an island of isolated information from an extremely small study. Why this is newsworthy is beyond us.
Not applicable. The availability of baking soda isn’t in question.
The story didn’t place this new, tiny study into the context of other research that’s been done on sodium bicarbonate and athletic performance.
The story lifted its researcher quotes from a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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