This article does an excellent job of putting a new finding about the benefits of echinacea in context of previous research. Too often an article will report the new findings and only much lower in the story mention that it contradicts earlier work. From the first paragraph the reporter lets us know we’re getting only the latest news about a messy, unresolved area of study.
The reporter also does a first-rate job of gathering a range of sources to put the findings in context. This article goes well beyond the minimum researcher-plus-one-outside-source requirement, with great benefit to readers.
But the story falls short in the area of helping readers make informed decisions based on the findings. The article doesn’t provide enough information on the magnitude of the benefits, the costs of the treatment, or the alternatives. This may leave a reader informed but not well prepared to make a decision about how these findings apply to their own lives.
Since this article is about a treatment whose benefits are disputed, it should tell readers how much it costs. This would let them do a rough cost-vs.-benefit calculation as they consider whether to use echinacea.
The reporter says the study showed a 58 percent reduction in cold risk, and some unspecified ability to shorten duration. It would be useful to know how likely an average adult or child is to get a cold each year, and how long it lasts. This would also help people understand the possible payoff of taking echinacea–and compare it to the costs.
The article points out that the herb has some side effects, and quotes a physician mentioning the most common one (a rash, especially in children) and the most important contraindication (pregnancy). It also points out that the study did not take potential harms into account, alerting readers to the possiblity of others not mentioned here.
The reporter does an excellent job of describing the technique of meta-analysis, the details of this study, and the benefits and limits of this research approach. He also provides context by describing earlier research into the same question.
The article does not exaggerate the effects of colds or the value of the treatment.
The reporter does an excellent job describing the rigor of the study and getting the author, an interested party, and a disinterested party to provide perspective.
The article fails to mention other options for treating and preventing colds. Again, due to the disputed nature of the findings, this is a significant oversight. The reader will want to know: If echinacea doesn’t work, what else can I try?
The article fails to say how widely the herb is used and where it’s available. But it’s probably safe to assume that most Americans know how to find it.
The article makes very clear that this treatment has been studied many times before, with contradictory results.
The reporter did a significant amount of original reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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