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 NPR. However, as with the NPR story, this story would have been even better if it had explained that the 16% lower risk of cancer was a relative risk reduction, and that the absolute difference was a mere 0.2 percentage point. Moreover, the story would have been improved by the use of more appropriate language in the headline — this type of study can’t tell us whether fiber “may help cut breast cancer risk,” and the story should’ve reflected that uncertainty in its headline description.
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. Findings that early life experiences (diet and behavior) affect later chance of malignancy and heart disease are beginning to emerge. This should be intuitive, but is hard to show in studies because of the very long periods between the early life experiences and later health outcomes.
There are a lot of foods you can eat to increase your dietary intake of fiber, and the story lists apples, pears, raspberries, artichokes, green peas, broccoli, split peas, lentils, beans, whole wheat pasta, whole grain bread, brown rice, bran flakes, and oatmeal. 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 NPR 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 is 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 absolute risk numbers 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 by eating more fruits and vegetables. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story offers a brief description of the study, and notes that it is an observational study rather than a clinical study. It also gets high marks for highlighting the fact that the study required women to “recall details about their adolescent diet when they were in their 30s and 40s.” (Though, worth noting, that sentence should say “…in their 30s, 40s and 50s.”)
The story incorporates input from multiple independent sources who provide valuable perspective on the research. We particularly liked this line from Dr. Deanna Attai. (Full disclosure: Dr. Attai is also a reviewer for HealthNewsReview.org.)
“The sexy headline is eat this and you’ll have a lower risk of breast cancer, but I’d shift the focus to, eat more fiber because it’s better for you and you’ll be a healthier person and you’re less likely to be obese and have chronic inflammation and other things that will reduce your risk for heart disease and cancer along the way,”
And while the story does not address conflicts of interest, there do not appear to be any conflicts of interest to report.
The story does note that increasing dietary fiber consumption “is just one mechanism by which we can reduce risk,” but it doesn’t mention any of the other mechanisms. Exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, getting sufficient sleep and limiting alcohol consumption can also help reduce breast 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 definitely incorporated original reporting.
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