This story attempted to provide a synopsis of the results of a study that examined whether smoking, caffeine consumption and the use of common pain medications might reduce the risk of developing Parkinson's disease.
The story fails to describe the strength of the evidence: a retrospective case-control study cannot prove cause-and-effect, only association. This is a study design that is most prone to bias or confounding. The story should have included some caveats about the strength of the evidence.
There was no mention of potential harms associated with cigarette smoking or coffee consumption. The story might have noted that smoking is known to be one of the leading causes of premature death and disease.
The article would have been strengthened had there been an expert opinion independent of the study authors. As it stands, this was a single-source story – never a good idea.
Costs not mentioned, but these are common knowledge.
The story provided no quantitative estimate of the beneficial effect cigarettes or caffeinated coffee consumption were found to have in the study. This is particuarly important where the seemingly beneficial effect on this one disease must be weighed against known harms of tobacco. Just how big could the benefit be vs. the known harms?
There was no mention of potential harms associated with cigarette smoking or coffee consumption. The story might have noted that smoking is known to be one of the leading causes of premature death and disease.
The story did not discuss the strength of the evidence that the study presented. The story reported about a study, the design of which cannot demonstrate cause-and-effect, only association. It was a retrospective case-control study, a study design that is most prone to bias or confounding.
The story appropriately described the prevalence of the disease.
Quotes from the senior author of the study reported on were included in the story. However, there does not appear to have been any interviews with an independent expert to help place the study within the context of what is known about Parkinson's disease prevention.
There is no mention of the usual management, treatment or prognosis of Parkinson's Disease.
The story discussed the results of a study that found the use of two common, readily available substances was associated with decreased incidence of developing Parkinson's disease for those known to have a family member who developed the disease.
This study reported on in the story presented results that are consistent with previous studies, and the story made that clear by saying "previous studies have suggested" much the same thing.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. We do know that the story only quoted one researcher who was involved in the study.
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