Here’s what we thought could have been handled better:
The story included some important caveats, and sought out an independent perspective to provide nuance to the reporting. But these strong points were overshadowed by the larger failure to grasp the quality of the evidence.
Parkinson’s is a progressive disease which causes tremors and other movement symptoms that typically worsen over time. Patients often have considerable difficulty carrying out everyday tasks, and some become severely disabled. While there are effective treatments, we currently don’t know if there are modifiable factors that can prevent Parkinson’s disease from developing in the first place. These results are interesting because they suggest that certain dietary habits may be associated with lower risk. It will take much more careful research to prove whether these habits are, in fact, protective.
The cost of berries and other foods rich in antioxidants is not in question.
It should be possible to calculate absolute risks from the data in this cohort study. However, this story reported only relative risks, which likely overstate the magnitude of the potential benefit.The absolute risk reduction for dietary changes and Parkinson’s risk is likely to be very small.
The story spends most of its time discussing the potential health benefits of berries. We’re not aware of any harm attributable to berry consumption (provided they are the edible kind).
And the story included this quote from the author:
“There are no harmful effects from berry consumption, and they lower the risk of hypertension too,” Gao added.
The story used cause-and-effect language to describe the findings of this observational study, which as we’ve noted repeatedly is inappropriate. We reiterate our call for journalists to read our primer on observational studies and stop using this kind of language.
We were pleased to see that the story mentioned some limitations of the study, and called for more research. But we think it missed one of the more important caveats: the fact that people who eat a lot of berries and drink green tea and red wine may differ in important ways from those who don’t eat and drink these things. It’s very difficult for a study such as this to account for all of those differences.
The story quoted an independent expert, who cautioned that people who already have Parkinson’s disease won’t benefit from eating berries or other flavonoid-rich foods.
There aren’t really any effective alternatives for preventing Parkinson’s disease, so we’ll rule this not applicable.
The availability of these foods is not in question.
While this may be the first study to document a relationship specifically between berries and Parkinson’s, there have been studies documenting possible benefits from similar dietary approaches that involve antioxidant-rich foods, such as the Mediterranean diet. The story could have mentioned this research.
We don’t think this story was based on a press release.
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