This succinct story – only 348 words – nicely captures the main message of new research showing that the nutritional supplement chondroitin is no better at relieving arthritis pain than placebo. It includes good sources and makes clear that chondroitin, though not proven to be effective, is also not harmful. But the story might help the reader evaluate the evidence if it explained a little more. For example, the authors of the analysis found that the effect of chondroitin on pain was equivalent to an improvement of 0.6 millimeters on a 10-centimeter scale—extremely tiny. This piece of data would have provided readers with a quantifiable estimate of non-efficacy. The story also neglects to note that there are other nonsurgical therapies that can help. Though there is no cure-all for osteoarthritis, conservative care include analgesics, exercise and physical therapy, devices such as canes and braces, and other strategies.
The story mentions the total amount that Americans spent on chondroitin supplements ($810 million in 2005), but not the individual's cost of purchasing the pills.
The story states that chondroitin is no better than placebo, a conclusion that might seem difficult to quantify. But the authors of the analysis illustrate this non-difference nicely in a piece of data missing in the news report. The effect of chondroitin on pain, they found, was equivalent to an improvement of 0.6 millimeters on a 10-centimeter scale—in other words, extremely tiny.
The story notes that there were no side effects from chondroitin and quotes an editorialist explaining that there was no harm in taking the supplements if patients felt they migh relieve pain.
The news story mentions that the research analysis focused on three of the “largest and most complete studies.” It's interesting to note the limitations and flaws of the other 17 studies that the researchers did not analyze. In addition to being small, as the news story notes, these randomized, double-blind trials showed tremendous variance in their results, did not adequately conceal from patients whether they received chondroitin or placebo, and failed to include dropouts in their analyses.
The story contained no elements of disease mongering. Osteoarthritis afflicts some 20 million Americans. It’s an important and often painful and disabling disease.
The story includes quotes from interviews with two good sources—the lead author of the new research paper and a spokesperson for a trade group for supplement makers. It also cites an accompanying editorial in the journal that published the research.
The news story notes that glucosamine is used to treat osteoarthritis (alone or in combination with chondroitin), but neglects to mention other nonoperative strategies that help patients cope with arthritis pain. These include analgesics, exercise and physical therapy, devices such as canes and braces, and others.
The news story mentions that chondroitin is a dietary supplement, suggesting that it is available in stores that sell supplements.
Readers should be able to infer that chondroitin is not an entirely novel therapy, since there are already at least 20 randomized trials examining its purported benefits.
The story did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
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