The story sounds cheerleading when it states, “If green coffee extract were a medication seeking approval from the FDA, these results would make it a viable candidate.”
That’s a pretty rah-rah definition of what makes a viable candidate.
No drug will be approved based on a 16-person, 6-week pilot study. And no drug would be approved with such an absence of information about potential harms.
Eat red meat, go to an early grave.
These are just a few of the sensational messages that some news stories have been putting out in recent weeks based on studies that need to be interpreted very cautiously. Now here is a weak, 16-person study about green coffee extract that’s being reported on well before it’s ready for prime time. To what purpose? Researchers and news outlets may get a temporary PR bump from reporting on studies like these, but it’s doing long term damage to the credibility of health (and especially nutrition) science.
Incidentally, the researcher on this study is making the media rounds this week: he’s also touting popcorn for having “more antioxidants than many kinds of fresh fruit.” (261 returns on Google search at this hour – NY Daily News, ABC News, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Fox News, SF Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, MSNBC.com, CNN, etc., etc., etc.) His web page also shows that he’s a big believer in the health benefits of chocolate. See a pattern here in how easy it is to get news coverage?
The story states that green coffee extract is available at roughly $20 per month.
As with the competing Health Day story, this story didn’t provide some key details of the “cross-over” study.
Was the weight loss seen only while the subjects were taking the active extract, or did it also occur when patients were taking the placebo pills (indicating that the weight loss was due to some other factor, such as their overall diet or exercise levels)? The story says that weight loss “appeared to be greater while subjects were taking the pills than when they were on the placebo” but offers no specifics. To score a satisfactory here, we’d need to see a more thorough reporting of how much weight was lost during the three trial periods.
Better than the HealthDay story on this criterion, quoting an expert on a specific concern about malabsorption within the gut – “a condition that would lead to weight loss as well as malnutrition, heart arrhythmias and other problems.”
We’ll make the same observation we made with the competing HealthDay story: the study that forms the basis for the story hasn’t been published and (at least when HealthDay reported on it) hadn’t even been presented at a scientific conference. And many of the questions we have about the study might have been answered had the story waited for some additional vetting.
For example:
And readers’ heads may have been spinning at the juxtaposition of descriptions within the story:
16 people.
Short-term use.
Unpublished data presented at a meeting.
Those are the key things to emphasize if you’re going to give this any publicity at all.
Since we weren’t told anything about the weight of the people being studied, we can’t make any judgment about disease-mongering.
Two independent experts added important perspectives to the story.
The story did not compare green coffee extract with other approaches to weight loss, such as dietary changes or drugs.
One can infer the availability of the extract from the story.
The story seems to imply that this is a first of its kind study – “the findings should pave the way for more rigorous research.”
But HealthDay, in its story, explained that “prior research had been conducted in both France and Japan.”
Because of the strong independent perspectives used, it’s clear the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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