The story includes multiple voices that explain the rationale for the new recommendation, as well as comments from prominent experts who dissent with some of the committee’s recommendation. The story does not give readers any information about whether any of the experts quoted have potential financial or other conflicts of interest. This story does not deal with the costs of supplementation, which another story noted totals hundreds of millions of dollars a year of spending on vitamin D supplements alone. The story does a nice job of calling attention to recent examples of high hopes and later disappointment involving vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene, thus helping readers put the current claims about vitamin D and calcium in perspective.
People may want clear and final answers about nutrition and health, but the reality of health research is usually more complex and less conclusive. This story manages to summarize and explain the Institute of Medicine recommendations on vitamin D and calcium, while portraying some of the ongoing scientific debate.
The story does not address costs. While the price of a supplement pill is typically just a few cents, this story would have been better if (like another story about this report that we reviewed) it had pointed out that Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on vitamin D supplements.
This story reports that the Institute of Medicine committee concluded that typical consumption of vitamin D and calcium is adequate to support bone health, though the story does not define just what the term “bone health” means. The nature of the IOM report does not lend itself to quantifying potential benefits to bone health or other outcomes that were mentioned. The story does provide details about blood levels of vitamin D that are considered adequate by the IOM committee, as well as the higher levels advocated by some individual experts.
The story also makes clear that the IOM committee concluded that evidence is lacking to claim that vitamin D or calcium produces other health benefits.
This story does a good job of calling attention to kidney damage from excessive vitamin D and kidney stones caused by too much calcium. It also says that some studies have found other harms.
This story does not do as good a job as some others in terms of explaining the process of evidence review and deliberation that the Institute of Medicine committee went through before issuing its report. However, readers are given a sense that the report is a consensus statement that attempts to sum up what is known about vitamin D and calcium. The story also refers to other reports and studies that provide context. The inclusion of comments from individual experts who dissent from some aspects of the IOM report accurately portray the active scientific debate on this topic.
This story also does a nice job of pointing out recent examples in which hopes of vitamin benefits were dashed by careful experiments, thus helping to put into perspective the claims by individual scientists of hoped-for benefits of higher vitamin D consumption.
The story clearly reports the Institute of Medicine committee conclusion that almost all Americans already consume enough vitamin D (and calcium) to support bone health. The comments from those who advocate broader use of supplements are labeled as individual opinions.
There are multiple independent sources quoted in this story. This story could have provided readers with more background about the independent sources quoted; there is no mention of whether any of them have any potential conflicts.
The story explains that there are alternatives to supplements, that vitamin D is included in foods (natural and fortified) and that vitamin D is produced in our skin when exposed to sunlight.
The story refers to the availability of vitamin D in certain foods (natural and fortified), supplements, and that our skin produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight.
There is no claim of novelty.
The story does not appear to 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