While both stories managed to deliver the correct bottom line about selenium supplements, Reuters did a better job explaining the costs and availability of selenium supplements and reporting the data presented in the study.
Selenium is a component of multivitamins taken by millions of Americans on a daily basis. Selenium supplements are also taken individually in the hope that they will ward off chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. While there isn’t much evidence that supplementation reduces the risk of these diseases in healthy individuals, the results of this new research at least provide some reassurance that selenium won’t raise your total cholesterol, which is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.
The story says a month’s supply of selenium costs about $2. But many people may be getting selenium in their daily multivitamin, and may not need to buy more.
The story mentions that high levels of selenium have been linked with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. It notes that no serious side effects were reported with selenium use in this particular study, but it should have qualified this by mentioning the relatively short duration of the study (6 months) and the potential for problems with longer-term use. It might also have noted that selenium supplements have the potential to cause a rare syndrome called selenosis when taken at very high doses.
The story provided adequate detail on the study design, including information on dosing that wasn’t included in the competing HealthDay report. It also notes that the results from this UK study may not be generalizable to the United States, where selenium intakes are adequate without supplements. Finally, the story emphasizes that selenium supplements are not recommended for cholesterol lowering or any other reason in healthy individuals.
The only expert source for this story was a co-author on the study being discussed. Although his comments are appropriately cautious, they are not sufficient to satisfy this criterion.
The story mentions several foods that are rich in selenium and can help boost dietary intake. It didn’t discuss how the effects of selenium supplements compare with those of statin drugs or other cholesterol-lowering interventions, but it does make it clear that supplements are not necessary and not recommended in the U.S. We’ll rule it satisfactory.
The story discusses food sources of selenium and notes that the mineral is sold as a supplement, so availability is not an issue.The story could have mentioned that selenium is pretty uniformly a component of multivitamin formulations. Individuals adding a selenium-specific supplement to a multivitamin could easily exceed the levels used in this study.
The story acknowledges previous research that had linked high selenium with higher cholesterol levels.
We couldn’t find any press release that would have served as the basis for this story. Since the story quotes only one source who was affiliated with the study, however, we can’t be certain to what extent this story may have relied on a press release. We’ll call it not applicable.
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