While HealthDay broke down the evidence in a clear, concise way for readers with a headline that read “No Good Evidence That Folk Remedies Ease Colic,” this story took the unsupported view that parents should start letting their colicky kids sip herbal tea. Unlike the HealthDay story, the MSNBC site’s “Today Moms” feature made no mention of the limitations of the studies being reviewed, failed to interview an single independent expert and even misstated some of the evidence.
None of the purported benefits of herbal tea (or of any of the other approaches) are quantified, giving readers nothing on which to base their decisions.
No discussion of potential harms nor of overall safety record of the approaches mentioned. We do appreciate, though, that the story said, “The study didn’t include specific instructions on dosage, so check with your pediatrician before trying any herbal remedy.”
The story said nothing about the quality of the evidence, despite the fact that the study itself concluded, “However, none of these randomized clinical trials were without flaws.” And, “Independent replications were missing for most modalities.” The HealthDay story did a much better job here.
The story starts out by disease-mongering, rubbing the raw nerves of parents by saying, “Next time your fussy, colicky baby has you teetering on the brink of sleep-deprived lunacy, consider a cup of herbal tea.” The HealthDay story was much more measured, saying, “In the United States, between 5 and 19 percent of infants are estimated to have colic, according to background information in the article. Because pediatricians can’t offer parents much help with it — for the most part, babies grow out of colic in time — desperate parents often turn to alternative or complementary treatments, according to the study.”
The story does not quote a single independent source. HealthDay used two. A general pediatrician could have given the usual sound advice and pointed out that colic is not harmful to the baby and that they grow out of it on their own.
The story does a poor job comparing herbal tea to the other remedies studied in the Pediatrics review. This makes it even harder for us to understand why the MSNBC site chose the headline “How to soothe baby’s colic? Pour a cup of tea” while many other outlets took HealthDay’s approach with headlines such as “Little proof herbs or massage treat baby colic” and “Herbal remedies no help for colicky babies.”
The story does not establish the novelty of herbal tea as a treatment for colic, even though it leads readers to believe that herbal tea is the first and best choice. The headline promotes tea as the only treatment that works for colic. And the story says, “Tea –made with chamomile, licorice, fennel and balm mint– was one of the most effective treatments for relieving symptoms of colic, according to a new Pediatrics study, which reviewed 15 randomized clinical trials of alternative treatments for infantile colic.” Without providing information about the limitations of those studies, the story makes tea sound like it is a proven cure. And we are bound to see this story used in marketing any day now. We also find it troubling that it cast the evidence — limited though it may be — for probiotics in such a negative light. The story says, “the least effective results came from treatments involving manipulation and probiotic supplements.” The study actually found enough promise in one brand of probiotic treatments to call for further study. As the HealthDay story explained, “A study of probiotics, which are reputed to help digestion, found that 95 percent of infants given L. reuteria probiotics seemed to reduce their average crying time compared to 7 percent of babies given simethicone, which is marketed to relieve gas under the brand names Mylicon and PediaCare Infants’ Gas Relief.”
Not applicable because we can’t be sure whether the story relied on a news release. We do know that there are no interviews quoted in the piece.
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.