Except for the headline, the story was carefully framed to avoid overstating the findings. This story is a good example of how to report on an observational meta-analysis.
We know how headlines are almost always written by someone other than the reporter. The disconnect here was clear.
Stroke is a major cause of death and disability in the aging population. We can decrease stroke risk by treating hypertension and taking aspirin. If dietary interventions decrease risk further, this is important public health information. People need to understand the context, however, because no one should rush out to buy magnesium supplements to the exclusion of other good health habits.
Not applicable. The cost of such a diet is not in question.
The story provided the absolute number of strokes observed in the analysis, and the relative risk reduction observed. With a meta-analysis it is not statistically appropriate to pool absolute risk reductions, so the way the story treated the evidence is as good as can be done (showing the relative risk reduction and an “anchor” in terms of absolute risk.)
Harms weren’t discussed, but we’re not sure there any substantial harms of a diet rich in leafy green vegetables, nuts and beans worth mentioning.
We appreciate how the story’s second sentence emphasized: “But the authors of the study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, stopped short of recommending people take a daily magnesium supplement because their analysis focused on magnesium in food — and it may be another aspect of the food that is responsible for their finding.”
The story included one independent expert’s perspective.
We’ll give the story a satisfactory grade for emphasizing that this study could not address whether other aspects of peoples’ diets affected the findings – and that the results were consistent with dietary recommendations.
The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned the importance of hypertension control in stroke reduction – and that it may be the favorable dietary pattern that is working with these people through improved blood pressure control.
Not applicable. The availability of this kind of diet is not in question.
The story was clear that this study was an analysis of seven studies published in the past 14 years.
The story did not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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