This story provides a summary of recent data from the Nurses' Health Study II on iron intake as it relates to lower risk of ovulatory infertility. Iron deficiency is relatively common in women of childbearing age, and a lack of iron may be one factor related to ovulation infertility; however, attention to the iron status of women with ovulatory dysfunction is new. Further research is needed in this area.
The story briefly describes the study, but does not mention that the Nurses Health Study II is a longitudinal, cohort study where women (in this case, women of child-bearing age) self-report their dietary intake, as well as other health behaviors and conditions. There was an association between increased iron intake and a lower risk of ovulatory infertility. Since these women were trying to get pregnant, they may have engaged in other health and fertility-increasing behaviors in addition to iron supplementation, so a randomized controlled trial is needed to see if, in fact, iron plays a significant role in reducing ovulatory infertility.
The story appropriately mentions that researchers controlled for age, smoking, obesity, and physical activity, which may increase ovulatory infertility.
The story does not mention potential side effects of iron supplements. They may cause gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and diarrhea, and in rare cases, toxicity from iron overload.
The story also does not include any input from practitioners for a clinical perspective of iron deficiency as it relates to ovulatory function and fertility. Only one source is cited and no one is quoted.
This was a news brief – only 143 words. News organizations should evaluate the harms and benefits of trying to explain complex research findings in such briefs. What is the impact on a woman with infertility who reads such a brief?
The story does not provide the cost of iron supplements. However, it is fairly common knowledge that iron supplements are inexpensive. And the story does mention that the form of iron associated with improved fertility can be found in found in fortified, non-animal food sources, including legumes and grains.
The story only provides the relative risk reduction of ovulation infertility associated with iron supplementation. The story appropriately mentions that researchers controlled for age, smoking, obesity, and physical activity which can affect infertility. The story does not mention that this type of study only showed an association between increased iron intake and lower risk of ovulatory infertility. Randomized controlled trials are needed to see just how much women with ovulation infertility would benefit from pre-natal iron supplementation.
Iron supplements may cause gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and diarrhea. There are also risks from iron overload. The story does not mention these potential side effects.
The story briefly describes the study, but does not mention that the Nurses' Health Study II is a longitudinal cohort study where women (in this case, women of child-bearing age) self-report their dietary intake, as well as other health behaviors and conditions. There was an association between increased iron intake and lower risk of ovulatory infertility. Since these women were trying to get pregnant, the may have engaged in other health and fertility-increasing behaviors in addition to iron supplementation, so a randomized controlled trial is needed to see if, in fact, iron plays a significant role in improving fertility in women.
No note is made about the limitations of such evidence or such evidence from one small trial. What is the impact on infertile women who read such a story?
This study cannot say anything about "reversing infertility" (alluded to in the opening hook sentence for the article), and is not an analysis that brings any information to the topic of reversing infetility.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. Iron deficiency is relatively common among women of childbearing age, and a lack of iron may be one factor related to ovulatory infertility. The story mentions that failure to ovulate is the second leading cause of infertility, after blocked fallopian tubes.
The story does include any practitioners for clinical perspectives on iron deficiency as it relates to infertility, or iron supplementation as part of pre-conception care. Only one source is cited and no one is quoted.
The story does list food sources where iron is available, as well as the amount of iron associated with greatest reduction in ovulatory infertility. More research is needed in this area.
It's clear that iron supplements are readily available to most people. The story notes that iron is also in many plant and animal foods, and many foods are iron-enriched.
The story provides a summary of recent data from the Nurses' Health Study II on iron intake and lower risk of ovulatory infertility. The practice of pre-natal nutritional supplementation is not new. Attention to the iron status of women with ovulatory dysfunction is new and further research on this topic would qualify as novel.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However, the story showed no evidence of original reporting and quoted no independent sources of information.
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