NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Olive Oil Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk

Rating

5 Star

Categories

Tags

Olive Oil Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk

Our Review Summary

An added nice touch was the discussion of the possible etiology of the olive oil effect (e.g., inflammation).

Overall, a solid summary.

 

Why This Matters

When an observational study points to a statistical association between one factor and one outcome, it is important to explain why that doesn’t necessarily mean that one factor caused that one outcome.  This story did a better job of that than its LA Times competition.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  The cost of olive oil is not in question.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story only cited a 41% lower risk of stroke but didn’t give the actual numbers of how many versus how many in the different groups. That may give an inflated sense of benefit or risk reduction.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Unlike the LA Times piece, WebMD rurns to an editorial writer and two other independent experts to evaluate the evidence. It mentioned that this was an observational study but didn’t explicitly define that or why that’s a potential limitation.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering of stroke in the story.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

Great sourcing – with 3 independent voices besides the study authors.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story ends, appropriately, with this: “Keeping blood pressure controlled, not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a healthy diet that is low in salt and rich in fruits and vegetables can also help reduce stroke risk.”

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  The availability of olive oil is not in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The relative novelty of the study’s focus was clear in the story.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.

Total Score: 6 of 7 Satisfactory

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.