The study reported on found an association between folic acid intake levels and a measure of school performance in a group of Swedish students. This story did not clarify for readers how the group studied differed in an important way from youth in the US, who are raised consuming a food supply supplemented with folic acid. The story failed to help readers understand that the results of the study were not generalizable to populations of children who differed from those studied. Nonetheless, the story went on to mention many problems that have at one time or other been postulated to be related to folic acid levels. And although the story indicated at the end that the study results did not show that folic acid supplementation was of benefit, the overall gist of the piece was that there was reason to be concerned about the folic acid intake of our nation’s youth.
Associations between diet and cognitive function are of interest. However, it is important that the insight from studies be reported so that readers can appreciate whether the outcomes apply to a US audience.
Not applicable. No discussion of costs but we don’t think that’s a big issue in this case.
The story did not quantify the improvement in scores as was done in the Reuters story.
Not applicable. The story could have mentioned the potential for excessive folic acid intake to interfere with vitamin B12 uptake which, though unlikely in a teen population, could mask symptoms of B12 deficiency. But we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this.
Although towards the end, the story quoted a pediatrician who explained that there was no evidence that taking folate supplements would be beneficial, the story failed to help readers understand that the study only showed that there was an association between the students score and their folic acid intake; that the population may have included youngsters who were deficient to begin with, and that the results of this small study may not be generally applicable to a population consuming a folic acid fortified food supply. These caveats were addressed in the competing Reuters story.
Although the study reported on examined the association between folic acid intake and composite school group score, this story strayed awkwardly into a litany of all sorts of problems associated with low folic acid intake: heart disease, brain development and function, poorer neurocognitive function and neurocognitive development, autism, spina bifida, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease. But such a laundry list, with no discussion of the strength of the evidence, seems alarmist.
Quotes from a clinician without apparent ties to the story were included in this story.
This story did a very nice job of indicating food sources of folic acid as well as those foods that are good sources of folic acid by virtue of food supply supplementation.
The story reported on the results of the study without helping readers understand that it was conducted on a population of youngsters without access to a folic acid supplemented food supply. The competing Reuters story made this point clearly.
The story discussed story a host of prior studies linking folate to cognitive function and reported that “these results provide new information” pointing to importance of watching folate status.
The story did not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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.