An added nice touch was the discussion of the possible etiology of the olive oil effect (e.g., inflammation).
Overall, a solid summary.
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.
Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Great sourcing – with 3 independent voices besides the study authors.
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.”
Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question.
The relative novelty of the study’s focus was clear in the story.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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