The inclusion of some cautious expert comments at the end helped atone for some of the excesses higher up in this piece, but the overall message was still hazy at best. The story gives the same weight to recommendations from one of the study researchers, who advises drinking 3 cups of coffee a day to prevent Alzheimer’s, as it does to the independent expert, who says we can’t recommend coffee for Alzheimer’s prevention until we test it in a clinical trial. Whom should we believe?
Readers of this story who are concerned about mild memory loss in themselves or loved ones will likely come away with an imperative to consume more caffeine. They would have been better served with a balanced piece including limitations of this study and observational research in general.
People don’t have the time, money, or motivation to follow every recommendation they hear about that might benefit their health. Journalists should help guide readers toward solid advice based on quality evidence. If journalists don’t raise the serious questions about efficacy or harm, how will people learn to filter stories such as this?
The cost of coffee is not in question.
The story just had too many unsupported statements about the benefits of coffee to earn a satisfactory here. Examples:
Caffeine can cause anxiety, poor sleep, irritative bladder symptoms, palpitations, and even arrythmia. Older people are at greater risk for each of these problems and should be aware of the adverse effects of caffeine, even at lower levels of intake.
This was a case-control study, a design which sits near the bottom of the hierarchy of medical evidence because it is prone to bias. However, apart from the mild cautionary comments offered by the independent expert at the end of the story (“the jury is still out on how or if caffeine affects risk for Alzheimer’s”), there was no critical analysis of the study or possible limitations of the data. The story also repeatedly used cause-and-effect language (“Drinking Coffee May Delay Alzheimer’s Disease”) to describe the benefits of coffee for prevention of Alzheimer’s and other diseases, when the available evidence doesn’t support these assertions.
An independent expert injects some important cautionary notes, We wish this perspective had been featured more prominently, and that more experts had been consulted.
There aren’t any proven strategies to reduce Alzheimer’s risk. However, there are a number of lifestyle factors — exercise, healthy diet, etc.– that have at least as much evidence to support them as coffee. The story could have mentioned these.
The availability of coffee is not in question.
The independent expert notes that there are other studies supporting a possible beneficial effect of coffee on Alzheimer’s disease.
The story did not rely excessively on this press release put out by the University of South Florida.
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 (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kip Hansen
June 15, 2012 at 6:58 pmWebMD, in my opinion, is one of the worst sources of medial and health information — particularly when covering these types of studies. No matter what the correlation, no matter how small the study, they make recommendations (sometimes explicit as in this example, sometimes implied) to their readers.
Henry
June 18, 2012 at 9:39 amI’ve read that for many people on the SAD (standard American diet), coffee is their major source of antioxidants. Maybe that’s why coffee is good for them – not the caffeine. Even in Japan.
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