One of the only suggestions we would make is that the story could have quantified potential harms. It didn’t quantify harms of estrogen (about which there is a great deal of evidence) nor of soy (for which there is a scant evidence base). However, the article does an acceptable job of acknowledging risks reported elsewhere for both treatments.
Hot flashes are such a hot button issue for so many women. It is refreshing to see a clear, straightforward daily news report that delivers most of the information women need to evaluate a new study.
We were pleased to see that the story included cost estimates of both soy supplements and of hormone replacement therapy pills.
The story explained that “women who took hormones had an average of 24 fewer hot flashes per month, while those who took soy had 12 per month.”
Adequate job reminding readers of the risks reported from the 2002 Women’s Health Inititiative study (although we wish it had given the absolute risk data). And it cited what the NIH reports as side effects of soy supplements – but again without numbers. Adequate nonetheless.
Adequate job. The story explained that soy hasn’t been studied as much as HRT for hot flashes and that “doctors don’t know exactly how it works.” It explained that this was a study of studies.
The story also includes a link to the study itself, which is always a nice touch.
No disease mongering. The story included some interest factoids such as the average number of hot flashes per month reported by women in the studies.
One apparently independent expert was quoted in the story.
We suppose that in an ideal world. the story could have at least commented on other alternative options that have been explored for hot flashes. But the story adequately discussed the comparison results from the study, and we appreciate that it ended with a comment about “watchful waiting” as well – reminding readers that not everyone chooses to take something for hot flashes.
Not applicable. The availability of soy supplements or of hormone replacement therapy is not in question.
No inordinate claims of novelty for either approach.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely 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