This story could have been botched so easily. Instead, this story covered the study and sought multiple independent perspectives which provided important analysis of the possible limitations of the research and the questions remaining.
Association does not equal causation, and this story nailed that point, explaining it clearly for readers. Nice job. To others who still don’t understand the difference, see our primer on this topic.
The story doesn’t discuss the cost of fried fish, but we think this is common knowledge. Not applicable in this case.
Not applicable. The story was about a potentially harmful association, not about benefits of any intervention.
Not applicable. The story was based on an observational study and the story was appropriately cautious about any causal link.
We love the analysis provided by independent experts:
“This is good stuff. It’s a well-done study, but I think one thing to bear in mind is that it’s not specifically a study of stroke risk. You’re looking at a community and seeing how it’s behaving on the whole,” says Daniel Labovitz, a stroke neurologist at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx.
“This study can’t tell you causation. It can’t tell you there’s a direct link between one thing and another, it just tells you they’re associated,” says stroke neurologist Victor Urrutia, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
How might eating fried fish impact stroke?
It could be that frying the fish leaches out the omega-3s, says Jeremy Lanford, stroke director at Scott & White Healthcare in Roundrock, Texas.
Or the increased fat calorie content from the frying oil may contribute to stroke, says author Nahab. He also notes that fish used for frying, such as cod and haddock, tend to be the types lower in healthy fats.
More research is needed to tease out whether cooking methods affect stroke risk, Labovitz says.
“In other words, is fried fish a problem, or is it another red herring?” he says.
No disease mongering of stroke, and especially not about the concern in the “stroke belt.”
The independent experts quoted made the story complete. Terrific analysis of the evidence by the independent experts.
A helpful sidebar included this information about alternative sources of omega-3 fatty acids:
There isn’t any question about the availability of fried fish, especially in the regions in question.
The story explained that this study is “part of a large government-funded study, Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS).”
It’s clear that the story didn’t rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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