Read Original Story

Best time of the month for women to quit smoking


2 Star


Best time of the month for women to quit smoking

Our Review Summary

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.


Why This Matters

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.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

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.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Applicable

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.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


The story did not commit disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

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.


Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

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.  

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


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.

Total Score: 2 of 8 Satisfactory

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 am

It 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.