This is a story about a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics which found an association between folic acid levels and school grades in a cohort of Swedish teens. This story did a reasonable job of describing this cohort study. It explained that the small study may not be meaningful in the US where many common foods are fortified with folic acid – making it unlikely that there are children with low or marginal intakes of this B vitamin.
Understanding how to interpret study results and knowing the appropriate questions to ask in order to understand how those results might be applicable is a valuable skill. Helping people think about studies of nutrition in context and whether they might apply to other populations is important. This story demonstrated those skills.
Not applicable. Costs weren’t mentioned, but we didn’t think that was a necessity in this case.
The story provided the data on the summation of grades showing the difference in folic acid levels in the children in the highest and lowest groups. While it is nice to have absolute grade difference provided, it would have been useful to indicate whether these differences were statistically significant or whether the differences in folic acid intake were clinically significant.
Not applicable. Harms not mentioned. 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.
The story mentioned the fact that the study was small and that the population differed in an important way from teens in the US who consume food that is supplemented with folic acid. It also pointed out that the study was not a randomized controlled trial so there may have been other differences between the groups of teens found to have high and low amounts of folic acid.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from independent sources who helped provide context and perspective on the study and its results.
The story mentioned that the food supply in the US was folic acid fortified.
The story stated that folic acid is one of the ‘B’ vitamins and that at least in the US, is found in fortified foods.
The story could have also mentioned that folic acid is a common ingredient in multivitamin formulations.
The story provided good background on folic acid intake.
This story did not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.