This story focuses on a recent study from the journal Pediatrics, which found that women who ate more dietary fiber during adolescence and young adulthood had a lower risk of developing breast cancer. The story does a nice job of addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the study — as does a competing story we reviewed from CBS. However, the story would have been even better if it had used more appropriate language in the headline. This type of study can’t prove cause and effect, and so it can’t really tell us whether fiber “may help protect against breast cancer.” The story also should’ve tried to give readers a sense of the absolute risk reduction seen in those who ate more fiber. While the story reports a 16% lower lifetime risk in the high fiber consumers, this is a relative risk reduction that we believe is misleading. Our calculations suggest that the absolute rate of breast cancer was 3.3% for the lowest fiber consumers vs. 3.1% for the highest fiber consumers, a mere 0.2 percentage point difference.
According to the CDC, breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States, with more than 224,000 new cases reported in 2012 alone. Research findings that identify new ways to reduce the incidence of breast cancer are newsworthy, particularly when the new health measures also have significant ancillary health benefits — as is the case with consuming a fiber-rich diet high in fruits and vegetables.
There are a lot of foods you can eat to increase your dietary intake of fiber, and the story singles out fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds. We’ll rate the story Not Applicable since most people are aware of the cost of the foods mentioned. However, we wish the story had discussed the fact that many of these healthy sources of dietary fiber are either unaffordable or unavailable to many young women, particularly those from low-income backgrounds who live in food deserts. As we noted with the CBS story, we recognize that this is a story about breast cancer risk, not about food availability. However, if a story focuses on the importance of a healthy diet, there should ideally be at least a brief acknowledgment that many people do not have access to the foods that make up a healthy diet.
We recognize that it would be challenging for any journalist covering this story to report on the absolute risks seen in the study. The study does not report absolute risks, although it’s possible to calculate them based on the data provided. One could look at the number of cases in each quintile of dietary fiber (found in Table 2) and divide that by the number of people in each quintile (which is found in Table 1). There are several steps involved, but for the example of early adulthood dietary fiber and breast cancer risk in this cohort, you could do the following calculation:
– 613 cases in quintile 1 / 18,364 women in quintile 1 = 3.3% later developed breast cancer (pre or post menopause).
– 567 cases in quintile 5/ 18,167 women in quintile 5 = 3.1% later developed breast cancer (pre or post menopause).
– The difference is 0.2 percentage point, which is quite a small absolute risk reduction.
When such results aren’t reported in a study, we think journalists should press their sources to provide these numbers so that they can be disseminated to the public. The issue of absolute risk reduction is key to helping readers understand the impact of changing dietary behaviors. We think it’s important enough to rate any story Not Satisfactory when these numbers aren’t provided.
We’re not aware of any harms from incorporating additional fiber into one’s diet. We’ll rate this not applicable.
The story does a good job of describing the study, and also explicitly addresses a potential weakness in the work: namely, that it “relies on data from women who had to recall what they ate during high school. They were in their 30s and 40 when asked, so there could be “recall bias” — the women’s memories may be foggy.” The story would have been even stronger if it had noted that this was an observational study, rather than a clinical study, which means that using causative verbs to describe the results (e.g. fiber “may help protect” against breast cancer) is not justified. Stories on studies like this should always state the dietary element is “associated with” or “linked to” a beneficial outcome.
In its second paragraph, the story says “…if you’re skimping on fiber, the health stakes are high, especially if you’re a teenage girl.” That’s scary language. This study is an interesting one, and possibly an important one, but it is also just one study addressing one risk factor for one disease. Granted, breast cancer is a scary disease. But the language here appears to be unduly alarming about the consequences of not eating a fiber-rich diet as a teenager. Also, since the absolute risk reduction is 0.2 percentage point there is no cause for alarm here.
The story only quotes two researchers in regard to the study. One was the study’s lead author, and the other was the author of a commentary on the study that was published in the same issue of Pediatrics. A third source is quoted in regard to what can be done to get teens to eat more fiber, but that source doesn’t address the study in question. We’ll give the story credit for reaching beyond the authors of the study, but we think the story would be much stronger if it had incorporated more expert analysis on the study itself.
The story doesn’t discuss other risk factors for breast cancer at all, much less other lifestyle choices that can reduce risk, such as maintaining a healthy weight, exercising, limiting alcohol consumption or getting enough sleep. Perspective is needed about ways we can stay healthy overall and reduce later cancer risk.
There are no new products or services at issue in this story, and we addressed access to healthy foods under “Cost,” so we’ll rate this not applicable.
This study is not the first to examine the possible link between dietary fiber and breast cancer risk. For example, a 2012 paper in the Annals of Oncology looked at 16 earlier studies on dietary fiber and breast cancer risk. There is no discussion of this earlier work, or how the new paper builds on or diverges from the previous research.
The story went well beyond a news release, incorporating significant additional information — particularly in regard to how to communicate the findings to adolescent and young adult women.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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