This story reports on the results of a large, population-based study in Japan looking at green tea consumption and overall mortality, heart disease mortality and cancer mortality. The study found that those who drank five or more cups of green tea daily had a significantly lower risk of dying of heart disease, but not of dying from cancer.
The story does a good job of describing the latest study as well as other studies that have shown conflicting results. The story also provides needed balance by quoting multiple independent experts.
The major flaw of the story is in the quantification of benefits. The story quantifies the benefits in relative terms only. The story should have provided more context for these numbers. For example, the story does not explain that, in spite of the large number of participants in the study, the actual number of deaths was very small. The rate of heart disease mortality was only between 2 and 3% (depending on gender) among non-tea drinkers. Reducing this rate by 20 to 30% by drinking 5 or more cups of green tea daily is a better way to look at the same numbers.
The story does not mention the costs of the tea, but we can assume that most people are aware of the range of costs of such products at the grocery store.
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. So when the story says “31% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease,” it doesn’t explain “31% of what?” Absolute terms should be given. The story should have provided more context for these numbers. For example, the story does not explain that, in spite of the large number of participants in the study, the actual number of deaths was very small. The death rate among the participants was between 1 and 3% (depending on the subgroup) over the study period.
The story does state that tea is generally harmless and has no calories.
The story provides an adequate description of the Japanese study as well as the results of other studies that have had conflicting results.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes multiple indpendent experts.
The story does not mention alternatives such as diet and exercise. This would have made the story much stronger.
Green tea is clearly available.
Green tea is clearly not new.
Because the story quotes several independent experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information
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.
You might also like