For decades, health benefits that may be derived from consuming a ‘Mediterranean diet’ have been reported on. This remains of general interest to readers. This story reported the results of a recent meta-analysis which pooled the results from 50 studies to examine the effect on risk factors associated with increased risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.
We wish the story had emphasized more strongly that the impact was on risk factors, not necessarily end organ endpoints. And it could have explained that metabolic syndrome itself is not a disease.
Not applicable. There was no discussion of costs, i.e. how consumption of a ‘Mediterranean diet’ compared to more typical diets compare in terms of cost to the consumer. But we think most people would have a pretty good grasp of the general costs of the types of foods involved. But where this becomes an issue, for example, is with what the cost of fresh fish can do to a food budget.
The story reported the 31% decrease in the risk of developing ‘metabolic syndrome’. But it is impossible for readers to know the magnitude of a 31% risk reduction – this should have been reported as an absolute change in risk. Also – the story should have provided some insight about how reducing the risk of this ‘precondition’ would affect individuals.
The story could have done a more complete job of reporting about the positive changes in individual risk factors, such as impact on HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, circulating glucose and insulin to enable readers to more fully gasp what was potentially impacted by adoption of this dietary regime.
Lastly – the story could have explained that metabolic syndrome itself is not a disease.
Not applicable. The study itself didn’t include any discussion of potential harms that could be attributable to ‘Mediterranean diet’ adherence.
The story explained that the results of the study reported on derived from analysis of the pooled results from a group of 50 studies. This story was much more clear on this point than the competing CNN.com story.
It would have been useful to readers to understand that these 50 studies were culled from a much larger number of studies. The other studies were excluded because of study design or other issues.
We do appreciate that the story quoted an independent expert on some of the limitations of the findings.
We’re going to give the story the benefit of the doubt. There wasn’t any overt disease mongering of the significance of diabetes, obesity and heart disease. The first sentence made an important point – that the diet “helps improve several risk factors” – but the emphasis could have been placed more strongly on the fact this impacted RISK FACTORS – not necessarily end-organ endpoints. The point could also have been made that metabolic syndrome itself is not a disease. We could have gone either way on this one.
A quote from an independent source was included in the story commenting on the study and reflections about the benefits of a ‘Mediterranean diet’.
The story did not provide any insight about how this dietary intervention compares with other approaches (exercise or drugs) for attaining the benefits suggested from the ”Mediterranean diet’. Even a line would have helped readers think about this context.
The story included an outline of the foods that are included in a ‘Mediterranean diet’ , enabling readers to appreciate that these foods are available in grocery stores.
The story was clear that the diet reported on was not new and that the outcome from the pooled results echo previously reported observations about this diet.
It’s clear that the story does not rely solely 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