The story’s headline and lead paragraph promise news about the best time of the month for women to quit smoking. But the study being reported on can tell us almost nothing about that intriguing topic. The study involved just 13 female smokers who were looking at smoking-related images, and the researchers found that brain scans differed between women who were at different phases in the menstrual cycle when they viewed the images. These subjects weren’t trying to quit smoking, and there’s no way to know, based on this research, whether the menstrual cycle plays any role in the success of attempts to quit. So the main gist of this story is irresponsible speculation.
Anyone who’s trying to quit smoking has a difficult path ahead of them, and they won’t be helped by stories like this one that don’t contain evidence-based information. There’s a huge stretch here between the study’s findings — that brain activity related to smoking cravings varies during the menstrual cycle — and the assertion that timing attempts to quit according to the cycle phase increases their effectiveness. It’s a small exploratory study on neurophysiologic mechanisms of smoking desire, and cannot be generalized to guide women on how to approach quitting smoking.
Since the story let the researchers get away with saying, “This result emphasizes the need for gender-specific programs to quit smoking…”, we might have dinged it for not projecting what the costs of such programs might be. But we’re going to rule this Not Applicable because it would be difficult at this point to think about all that might be involved in costs of such an approach, even if this research was close to true real-world application, which it is not.
In the original study that’s being reported on, the authors state that they “only observed subtle differences in brain activations between the follicular and luteal phases.” But the article does not make clear that the findings were “subtle.” In fact, there was no discussion about the strengths of the relationships observed. In addition, the story states that other areas of the brain showed activity during certain phases of menstrual cycle. Do these areas of the brain also show activity for other responses? Are there other parts of the brain that are also associated with cravings that were not activated? The story could have done a lot more to describe what the researchers actually found in the study and why it might be relevant to readers.
No harms were mentioned, but it’s also difficult for us to envision what they might be in this case, so we’ll call it not applicable.
The story raises a lot of questions that we wish were answered but were not. Is fMRI — the brain scan used by the researchers — a valid tool for detecting smoking cravings? Are cravings associated with visual cues strong predictors of smoking behavior? How would the concepts discussed in the story be applied in a real-world smoking cessation setting?
The story overstates the findings of a very small exploratory study on the neurophysiology of smoking cravings related to the menstrual cycle. It implies that there is a practical clinical application of the study’s findings when in fact there is no evidence that this is the case.
The story did not consult with independent sources. A brief talk or email exchange with any qualified expert would’ve shot down most of the inflated claims made in this story. Any journalist who doesn’t know where to turn for independent sources could access our List of Industry-Independent Experts.
The story did not mention other approaches to smoking cessation that have strong evidence to support them. Even though the value of timing smoking cessation efforts with a woman’s menstrual cycle is unknown, the story could have done a service to readers by informing them of methods that have been rigorously tested. This could have been done with just an additional sentence or two.
The story ends with a call for emphasis on “gender-specific programs to quit smoking.” Are such programs available? The headline and the first sentence might suggest to some readers that the proof is in and that women can already get help with this. Accordingly, we’ll rate this as unsatisfactory.
While the story established that “Previous studies have found women’s monthly hormone fluctuations can affect everything from food cravings and digestive problems to joint pain and a whole host of other health issues,” it never really addresses whether this is groundbreaking research about hormone flux and smoking. It may well be important and novel research, but the story doesn’t establish that context.
The spin that’s prevalent in this story probably originated with this press release headlined, “Women, quitting smoking for New Years? Time it with your period!” However, the story includes quotes from the original study, so it appears that the press release was not the only source of information used for the story. We’ll call this satisfactory.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Liz Seegert
January 12, 2015 at 10:27 amIt seems that CBS didn’t bother to interview the lead author. I did and was told that some of the quotes and information in the release were taken out of context. The researcher was only laying groundwork for a future study involving a much larger sample of people with schizophrenia. The published study [required reading] did point out several of the limitations noted above. This is another case study of why reporters (even on deadline) cannot rely only on press releases — or even just a study in isolation. It’s vital to speak with the author(s) and independent experts to put it all in context.
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