Our Review Summary
As strongly suggestive as a large, long-term observational study may be – and as important as the research may be as a piece of the puzzle of answering research questions – such a study cannot establish cause and effect. So news stories that use causal language (“benefit…risk reduction”) should be edited more carefully. Read our primer on association versus causation.
Why This Matters
It matters because we need to start educating the public that not all studies are equal. Also, people are exhausted by (and suspicious of) the constant stream of information about what will make them healthier and thinner, only to find out later that the research was debunked.
Criteria
Not Applicable
The cost of aspirin is not in question.
Not Satisfactory
We’re going to take an admittedly hard-line stance on this because we think such a story can easily do a better job.
The story acknowledges at one point that the study “found an association, not cause and effect.” Yet it uses cause and effect language in various places, such as:
- “the benefit” in the second sentence.
- “16% risk reduction” and “most of the reduced risk”
“Benefit” and “risk reduction” and “reduced risk” convey more than an association. Those terms convey cause and effect. Take aspirin, get the “benefit” of “reduced risk.” This study, strongly suggestive though it may be given the numbers of people involved, cannot establish cause and effect.
So the suggestion of benefit needs to be couched in more careful language than this story did.
The competing Reuters story gave absolute risk reduction and was more cautious in general in interpreting results.
Satisfactory
The story acknowledged that “even low-dose aspirin can lead to problems such as serious gastrointestinal bleeding.”
Satisfactory
The story had two key lines:
- one a quote from the researcher that “our results provide additional support for the potential benefit.”
- He found an association, not cause and effect.
Unfortunately, the story contradicted these two points with some of the language used to describe “benefit” and “risk reduction” as already noted. Nonethless, we won’t ding it in two different places for the same flaw.
Reuters did a better job, though, of itemizing limitations of the work.
Satisfactory
No disease mongering at play.
Not Satisfactory
Again, we’ll take a hard-line approach.
Yes, the story had an additional source, an editorial writer. And yes, it disclosed the industry ties of that editorial writer and the fact that he holds a patent for chemoprevention use of aspirin.
It is understandable that the story would turn to Dr. Baron’s comments, since he wrote the accompanying editorial and since he has published extensively on this topic.
But, by definition, since he was the only other source used, there was no independent source used in the story.
By contrast, Reuters had no problem finding a truly independent source.
Satisfactory
At least the story included this line: “Many other strategies will also reduce the risk of cancer. Among them: engaging in regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy diet and not smoking cigarettes.”
Not Applicable
The availability of aspirin is not in question.
Satisfactory
The story at least acknowledges “a previous study by others,” making at least passing reference to the fact that this is not the only research on this question. Barely satisfactory, though, as the Reuters story gives additional context to be clear what contribution the new study makes/
Satisfactory
There’s no evidence this story relied on a news release.
Total Score: 6 of 8 Satisfactory
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