At least the Post, unlike CNN, managed to slip in a few caveats about the research in its 270-word snippet of a story. And it didn’t make any questionable claims about the health effects of omega-3s. However, the story lacked a clear explanation of the potential benefits and offered no independent perspective. Both would have been helpful here.
We recognize that this feature, Quick Study, is meant to be a short summary of research for the busy reader. And we appreciate the standard disclaimer the feature carries at the end, which says: “conclusive evidence about a treatment’s effectiveness is rarely found in a single study. Anyone considering changing or beginning treatment of any kind should consult with a physician.” Nevertheless, even tiny information nuggets like this one need to provide key details about the research and context. If there’s not enough room for those things, editors should think hard about whether the story is worth running at all. Does this help readers – or just add more background noise in the daily drumbeat of health care news?
The cost of fish is not in question.
The story tells us individuals with lower omega-3 levels “scored lower on cognitive tests measuring such things as memory, problem solving, abstract thinking and multi-tasking.” But how much lower were the scores and did they indicate a meaningful difference in how these people functioned? The story doesn’t say.
The harms of eating fish are not in question – although the story could have mentioned concerns with mercury in some fish at some levels of consumption.
The story mentions some limitations: “Most participants were white. Testing and measurements were done once, providing no data for comparison over time or to determine any link to dementia.”
We’ll call this satisfactory, but the story didn’t get to the heart of the matter the way the competing HealthDay coverage did. The key issue is that this kind of study can’t show whether it was the omega-3s, or some factor or combination of factors associated with higher omega-3 intake, that was responsible for the benefits.
No independent source was quoted. An extra two dozen words may have done the trick.
There was no discussion of alternatives (such as exercise, mental stimulation) to omega-3s for preserving cognitive function.
The availability of fish and fish oil is not in question.
Previous research has suggested possible benefits of fish and other components of a healthy diet on cognitive function during aging. This story didn’t mention any of that research.
We can’t tell to what extent this story may have relied on a press release, so we’ll call it not applicable.
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