This was a 138-word story on a recent study that found that more than one multivitamin a day was correlated with increased risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer. However the story fell short of the mark of informing readers because it failed to provide sufficient context to understand what the absolute increase in risk was. See our primer on absolute vs. relative risk.
Instead of explaining that taking additional beta carotene and zinc supplements increased this risk even more, the story could have used that space to provide numbers to help men understand the frequency with which advanced prostate cancer occurs and how common it is that prostate cancer never advances or becomes fatal. Saying that risk was increased 32% or "nearly doubled" just isn’t helpful if readers aren’t given the baseline risk. 32% of what? Nearly double what?
We will continue to point out the severe limitations of such short pieces on medical science.
Meantime, a short 263-word story by USA Today on the same study got a five-star score – so it is possible to be brief and meet most of our criteria.
Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss the costs of multivitamins, but this is common knowledge.
The story mentioned that the study "provided strong evidence that taking just one multivitamin a day did not cause harm.", which could be considered a benefit of treatment.
The harms of treatment, i.e. increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer were mentioned. However, the source article for this story included estimates of the frequency with which these normally occur, so the story could have included this information and provided a more informative picture.
The story provided evidence of increased risk only in relative terms, not absolute. See our primer on this issue. Without knowing how common advanced or fatal prostate cancer are, it is not possible to understand what 32% and 50% increases represent.
This story did not engage in disease mongering.
The only source quoted in this story was the senior author of the paper reported on. It would have been helpful to have an independent source comment on the results presented.
The treatment options discussed are taking one multivitamin a day (which was not found to increase advanced prostate cancer risk) and taking more than one multivitamin a day, which was found to be correlated with increased risk.
The story didn’t provide information about other options for decreasing prostate cancer risk, or other factors that increase prostate cancer risk.
Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss availability of multivitamins but this is common knowledge.
The story does not mention whether the observation that excessive vitamin consumption is associated with increased prostate cancer risk was new or not.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Only one source is quoted.
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