This is a story presenting the results of a newly published study that found that additional fruit and vegetable consumption did not affect breast cancer recurrence or mortality rates. The finding that there was no benefit observed from higher intakes of fruits and vegetables may be counterintuitive to some people but the article did not provide any explanation for the results reported. Helping readers understand some of this nuance would be valuable.
Rather than merely reporting on the study outcome by interviewing two of the researchers involved in the study it would have been interesting to understand the reasoning behind the study to begin with. All the women in the study reported consuming more daily servings of fruits and vegetables than were recommended as the control and so the fact that additional daily servings did not modify the outcomes of cancer recurrence or death does not seem especially surprising. It would also have been interesting to see a discussion about why the interim results differed from the final analysis of the trial.
There was no discussion about the costs associated with including fruits and vegetables in the diet, although it’s reasonable to assume that the reader could figure out the costs.
The story not only provided the information that the two groups did not differ in terms of rates for breast cancer recurrence or death, but included the estimates of this from the study summary.
There was no discussion of potential harms associated with fruit and vegetable consumption, something some might think is unnecessary. But, for comparison, another story by another news organization did quote the lead investigator as saying there were no harms found with eating fruits and vegetables above a certain threshhold. It could have been addressed in this story.
This story included the most relevant information (i.e. breast cancer recurrence and survival rates) from the study but it would been better had it explained that this was a randomized clincial trial and not merely an epidemiologic study.
It might have been of interest to readers to know that the two groups differed in terms of the number of daily fruit and vegetable servings were recommended but both groups started out consuming more than the 5 daily servings recommended to the control group and that by the end of the story, self reported intake had dropped off in the intervention group.
This story did not engage in disease mongering.
This story included comments from two of the study’s authors but failed to get any independent perspective.
The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence strategies (avoiding weight gain, medications, etc.). Especially as the outcome of the study reported on was to show no benefit, other options that have demonstrated efficacy for decreasing risk recurrence could have been mentioned.
This criterion does not apply in this story.
The story was explicit that it was reporting on the results of a recently published study.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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