We liked the careful framing of results, which avoided any suggestion that the alcohol was causing the better health outcomes. We also appreciated the caveat about avoiding higher alcohol intakes, which would likely negate any health benefits. But we wish the story included a comment or two from an independent expert about the limitations of the study, or the size of the effect that was seen.
Single-source coverage invariably tells only one side of a story about health research. An independent perspective can almost always help readers interpret complicated studies better. Stories reporting on dietary or lifestyle exposures have to be particularly careful to include context and discussion of possible harm.
The cost of alcoholic beverages isn’t in question.
The story cites the same relative risk comparisons reported by WebMD, which we think are misleading to the average reader for the reasons discussed in that review. The story should have found a way to communicate that the “almost 50 percent” difference between teetotalers and daily drinkers probably doesn’t translate into a very big difference in risk for the individual. See how the “Behind the Headlines” site in the UK analyzed the evidence and included the absolute differences.
The story cautions that higher levels of alcohol intake are not protective, remedying an important deficiency in the competing WebMD coverage. But it doesn’t really address the uncertainty about whether moderate alcohol intake might increase the risk for some diseases such as breast cancer or pose other potential harms. As such, it doesn’t fulfill the criterion.
The story does a good job of framing what it is this study tells us: “Even middle-aged women can have about a drink a day of any kind of alcoholic beverage as part of what they do to try to stay healthy as they age.” There is no suggestion here that the alcohol is causing the better health — merely that it seems to part of a healthy lifestyle. Contrast this with the competing WebMD headline, which said: “Moderate Drinking May Cut Disease Risk.” The story could have done a better job outlining some of the other limitations in this kind of analysis, but we’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory.
There were no independent sources cited.
The study didn’t mention any other factors that we know can promote healthy aging, including a healthy diet and physical activity. That could have been done in just another additional line.
The availability of alcoholic beverages isn’t in question.
As with the competing WebMD story, the coverage did not really explain what is novel about this research. It shows that the potential protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption extends into older age.
Since there were no independent perspectives, we can’t tell to what extent this story may have relied on this news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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