This "brief" reports on the results of a study looking at alcohol consumption and risk for heart disease among men who have high blood pressure. That moderate alcohol consumption reduces heart disease risk is not a new idea, however recommending it in individuals with high blood pressure is controversial given that excessive alcohol can actually raise blood pressure. This study supports the idea that moderate amounts of alcohol can be just as beneficial to men with hypertenstion as it is for those who do not have high blood pressure.
The story adequately describes the strength of the existing evidence and points out some of the limitations, for example, that the results may not be generalizable to a broader population. However, the story should have also mentioned that any study using self-reported intake of food or drink is always prone to error in how consumption is measured.
The story does not quantify the benefits of moderate drinking. The story only provided qualitative descriptions of the benefits. Furthermore, the story does not mention any alternatives to reduce cardiovascular disease risk. Finally, the story only quotes one expert, the lead author on the study. The story should have quoted multiple experts who could provide more perspective.
This "brief" is clearly designed to be so; an editorial decision by the Globe. But there is only so much you can do in a 273-word story, and the limitations in such a word count were evident in this story.
The story does not mention the cost of having one or two drinks a day, but most people know what the tab can be. So we consider this criterion not applicable for this story.
The story does not quantify the benefits of moderate drinking. The story only provided qualitative descriptions of the benefits. Readers deserve the data in order to make their own judgments of the strength of the evidence.
Although the story does mention excessive drinking as a harm (it could raise blood pressure), it does not mention any of the other potential adverse effects.
The story adequately describes the strength of the existing evidence and points out some of the limitations, for example, that the results may not be generalizable to a broader population. The story should have also mentioned that any study using self-reported intake of food or drink is always prone to error in how consumption is measured.
The study does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of heart disease.
The story only quotes one expert, the lead author on the study. The story should have quoted multiple experts who could provide more perspective.
The story does not mention any alternatives to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.
Clearly alcoholic drinks are available.
The idea that moderate alcohol consumption can reduce cardiovascular disease is not a new one, however the story points out that it had never been advocated in those with hypertension.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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