NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Add bone, and drop pounds

Rating

3 Star

Add bone, and drop pounds

Our Review Summary

Readers might easily come away from this story with the impression that dietary supplements intended to shore up aging bones have a pleasant, unintended side effect—weight control. But if the story had included more information about the trial it reports, a little more analysis, and comments from an independent source, readers might instead have come away with the realization that these supplements may be all but useless for weight control. Instead of  “Add Bone, Drop Pounds, “ an accurate headline might read, “Bone Supplements No Panacea for Midlife Bulge” or something of the sort. In addition to lacking information about the cost of supplements, their potential harms, and alternative methods of weight control, the story fails to adequately back up its suggestion that women who took supplements were less likely to gain weight than those who did not. Just exactly what was the benefit?  Not much. The trial showed that women who took calcium and vitamin D for seven years were about a third of pound lighter (0.13 kg or 0.29 pounds) than women who did not. They did not “drop pounds,” as the news story headline suggests, but simply had smaller weight increases or were less likely to gain weight.  The study’s authors themselves characterize the magnitude of the effect as “small” and speculate that it may be an artifact of their very large sample. Large trials are capable of capturing tiny, statistically significant differences between groups that may not be meaningful if the two groups being compared are slightly different in ways (e.g. behaviors or risk factors) that the trial can not detect. (This is known as “randomization error.”)  This 187-word news brief fails to capture the tiny “benefit” of these supplements or doubts in the research community about their clinical significance.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Although the brief does not mention costs, calcium supplements are available without a prescription and consumers can easily determine their costs.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not cite the absolute benefit of vitamin supplements on weight control. The trial showed that women who took calcium and vitamin D were on average less than a third of a pound lighter (0.13 kg or 0.29 lbs) seven years later than women who did not. Despite the headline “Add bone, drop pounds,” the story also fails to mention whether the dietary supplements influenced bone health or the incidence of fragility fractures. A closer reading of the trial could easily lead a postmenopausal woman to question both the accuracy of the article’s headline and the clinical relevance of the study it reported.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no mention of harms of treatment in the news story or in the published study. Other research suggests that main harm of taking the supplements is kidney stones.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The news brief says some women “were given” vitamin supplements and other women placebo, hinting that the study was a randomized controlled trial. Given the extraordinary size of the population enrolled—more than 36,000 women—readers would be better able to evaluate the quality of the study if the story clarified this. The story also failed to mention that the new study is an analysis of data from a trial initially designed to find out whether calcium and vitamin D reduce the risk of hip fractures or colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No obvious elements of disease-mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story cited one of the study’s authors, but no independent source who might have expressed greater uncertainty about the significance of the study findings.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The news story neglected to mention other safe methods of controlling weight in postmenopausal women. These include calorie-watching and exercise.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

The news brief does not mention availability, but most readers will know where to find calcium and vitamin D supplements.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The news brief begins by saying that women already know they “need calcium to protect against osteoporosis,” suggesting that the treatment has a longstanding history.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.  We do know that it only quoted one source – a study author. 

Total Score: 3 of 7 Satisfactory

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.