Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a signficant problem in the elderly. It is a slow, progressive disease that can ultimately lead to blindness over time. Unfortunately, there are few options available for prevention or treatment and this story discusses new evidence showing no benefit in terms of prevent AMD from one option, beta carotene supplements.
This story manages to provide the reader with adequate information on the problem of treating AMD and the strength of the available evidence to support the use of supplements. The story adequately describes the strength of the current study and points out some of the limitations. The story also mentions that there is some evidence that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer in smokers, an important harm. The story adequately quantifies the benefit of supplements by providing the actual number of cases of AMD observed in the supplement group compared to the "dummy pill" group.
The story does mention that there is no cure for AMD (the "dry" form) and that supplements are really the only option currently available. However, the story misses the main point of the scientific paper, which was that beta carotene supplementation does not appear to prevent AMD in people at usual risk for the disease. In contrast, there is evidence that antioxidant supplements (those tested contain beta carotene as a component) can be used to slow progression of AMD in those who have it.
Overall, a good job, and in less than 500 words (496).
The story does not describe the cost of the supplements.
The story does provide the actual number of cases of AMD observed in the supplement group compared to the "dummy pill" group.
The story does mention that there is some evidence that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer in smokers.
The story adequately describes the strength of the current study and points out some of the limitations.
The story avoids disease mongering by not exaggerating the seriousness or prevalence of AMD. However, the story should have made the distinction between the different types of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The supplements in question are only used in people with the "dry" form of the condition, not the "wet" form. By not making this distinction, the story implies that the supplements can be used in everyone with the disease.
The story does quote one independent expert and notes the funding sources for the investigators.
The story does mention that there is no cure for AMD (the "dry" form) and that supplements are really the only option currently available. However, the story misses the main point of the scientific paper, which was that beta carotene supplementation does not appear to PREVENT AMD in people at usual risk for the disease. In contrast, there is evidence that antioxidant supplements (those tested contain beta carotene as a component) can be used to slow progression of AMD in those who have it.
The story mentions that the supplements are available over the counter.
The story clearly states that using beta-carotene for eye conditions is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes an independent expert, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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