Read Original Story

HealthDay parrots another news release, this time overstating benefits of exercise for lymphoma

Rating

2 Star

Categories

Tags

Get Active, Beat Lymphoma?

Our Review Summary

exercise lymphomaThe news story focuses on research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, linking high levels of physical activity with increased survival for patients who have been diagnosed with lymphoma.

The headline–“Get active, beat lymphoma?”–is misleading. Even if the study could prove cause and effect (it couldn’t), it didn’t show that exercise “beat” lymphoma.

The story was problematic on several more fronts; all may stem from the fact that the news story appears to be derived nearly entirely from a related news release, and includes some of the misleading information found there. This is a worrisome trend we highlighted on our blog last month.

 

Why This Matters

Journalism is a skilled craft that requires critical thinking and hard work, because reporters have a responsibility to help their readers sort fact from fiction and to place all of this information into context. This story does not meet that bar.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Cost is really not applicable here. The story (and the relevant research) focuses on general levels of physical activity, not specific forms of physical activity.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story makes no attempt to quantify benefits, relying instead on the same general language found in the news release. For example, the story states:

“People whose physical activity was greater than normal before diagnosis were less likely to have died from lymphoma, or from any other cause, than were those who’d been less active, the study found. People who’d boosted their physical activity level after being diagnosed with lymphoma also were less likely to have died in that three-year span than were those who hadn’t increased their activity level.”

How much less likely were the folks in either group to die of any cause? How much less likely were they to die from lymphoma? Was there a difference in the level of benefit from being active before diagnosis as compared to becoming more active after diagnosis? How did they measure what constituted physical activity? The story doesn’t tell us.

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

Not Satisfactory

In general, we feel that it is important to discuss potential risks even if those risks are minimal. In this case, you’re talking about a group of people with a very serious illness taking very serious drugs–what should they know about the risks of increasing their physical activity?

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

Not Satisfactory

The story describes the study as being of “nearly 4,100 people” — paraphrasing the news release’s statement that “researchers studied a cohort of 4087 lymphoma patients.”

In reality, the researchers were only able to collect baseline physical activity data from 3,060 study participants — and got follow-up data from only 1,395. The story also fails to tell readers that this was an observational study, without control groups or interventions.

Instead the story simply tells us “the study couldn’t prove that more exercise actually caused death risk to drop.”

That’s a good start—but we need to know why. What about the study design prevented it from proving the relationship is cause and effect? The story also should have explained that there are limitations to this kind of data: Some people could have been healthier to begin with, and therefore more capable of physical activity than those who were in poorer health–be it from cancer or something else entirely.

That said, we appreciate that the story explicitly states that “Research presented at meetings should be considered preliminary because it has not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny given to research published in medical journals.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering here.

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

Not Satisfactory

No independent sources are cited in the story, nor does the story tell readers who funded the relevant study or whether there are any potential conflicts of interest among the researchers. (The study abstract itself doesn’t tell readers who funded the study, though it does list the various industry relationships of the researchers.)

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story is focused on the relationship between physical activity and lymphoma survival rates — but provides no information on how common lymphoma is, what survival rates are or what treatment options are available. There’s simply no context here for readers.

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

Not Applicable

It can be assumed that readers are aware of their options regarding physical activity.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story addresses this early on with a quote from one of the researchers: “we did not know if physical activity would have an impact on survival in lymphoma patients.” Frankly, we still don’t know that — it was an observational study. But there does appear to be a correlation, and identifying that correlation is what is novel here.

Total Score: 2 of 8 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.