This story hinted at other factors that might explain the statistical association – but didn’t drive home the limitations of an observational study. It also didn’t point out that such a cross-sectional study (the exposure – fasting – and the outcome – coronary artery disease, as measured by angiography – were measured at the same time) can’t draw any conclusions about causality.
Single source stories like this – from a team promoting its current and past line of research – demands independent perspectives. But this story didn’t provide any.
Stories about talks at scientific meetings require caveats because the data has not undergone rigorous peer review.
Stories about observational studies require more explanation and more careful language than provided in this story.
Not applicable. Cost of fasting not an issue.
The story states that “people who fasted regularly had a 58 percent lower risk of coronary disease compared with those who said they didn’t fast.” But 58% of what? The story could have noted baseline risk in the general population or in people diagnosed with coronary heart disease. But even in the latter category, that’s a very wide spectrum of disease. All of which shows how the 58% figure lacks any context for readers.
The only discussion of potential harms of fasting was this: “Any fast should include water because dehydration can raise risk for stroke.” Over what period of time? What’s the evidence base? In what kinds of people? What could happen if people at risk for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetics, fast?
Even the previous line in the story suggests a broader issue than that when it said “fasting is causing some major stress.” What does that mean, and what are the broader implications for potential harms?
Mixed bag, but the negatives outweighed the positives.
Good point:
Followed by a weak point:
The story also never mentioned the inherent limitations in drawing conclusions from a study of 30 people over 24 hours’ time. Nor did it mention that this conference presentation had not yet undergone rigorous peer review.
No independent expert was quoted, something sorely lacking in the story.
Another mixed bag, but with a confusing message that warrants an unsatisfactory grade.
The story points out that one of the limitations in the study may have been that its subjects – Mormons – abstain from alcohol, smoking and caffeine – all factors that could affect heart health.
But later in the story it allows the researcher to say “what it does suggest is that fasting is not a marker for other healthy lifestyle behaviors.”
Huh? That seems to convey some independent protective effect that the study simply can’t prove. And it seems to minimize the other confounding factors acknowledged earlier in the story.
Not applicable. Anyone can fast.
The story at least noted that the same research team published an earlier, larger study in 2008.
The story appears to have included an interview with the researcher, so we think it’s unlikely that it relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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