The story allows the researcher to say, “More fish, more brain, less Alzheimer’s.” Pithy. Quotable. But simplistic and not proven by this study.
At least the competing HealthDay story interviewed an independent source who wondered about other possible confounding factors in the research and stated, “For now, the connection must be viewed as an association, rather than a cause-and-effect.”
So even though the WebMD story scored better, the HealthDay story did slightly better on this critical piece of analysis. (The HealthDay story had its own flaws – for example, burying that “association” line instead of placing it high in the story and overwhelming it with cause-and-effect language throughout the story.)
The cost of fish is not in question.
Even more than the competing story by HealthDay, this story focused only on the surrogate marker of what brain scans showed.
Did that make any difference in anyone’s actual cognitive abilities? The story never said.
At least HealthDay mentioned – although inadequate in its brevity – that those who ate baked or broiled fish showed better “working memory” enabling them to more effectively execute routine tasks.
Better than the competing HealthDay story, at least WebMD reminded readers:
“The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children avoid eating shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish and limiting albacore tuna to 6 ounces per week because of concern about levels of mercury in these fish.”
The story didn’t even hint at the limitations of observational studies.
It used boilerplate language at the end about the limitations of drawing conclusions from talks at scientific meetings, but that doesn’t get at the heart of evaluating the evidence being reported.
The story turned to the chief medical and scientific officer of the Alzheimer’s Association for comment. But the quote used from him didn’t contribute much to an evaluation of the study.
The story at least hinted at “other risk factors for memory loss that could affect the results, including age, gender, education, obesity and physical activity.”
The availability of fish is not in question.
The story at least stated that “the new study is the first to establish a direct relationship between fish consumption, brain structure and Alzheimer’s risk” and that “Several studies have linked a diet rich in certain fish to a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.
Terry Zeta
December 5, 2011 at 9:33 pmThis post is great, very informational. More fish, more brains. LOL! Thanks for the post. :)
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