Among the most misleading themes regularly appearing in the news cycle are features on some new way to lose weight. Reporters need something new to write about, and news releases about fad diets, exercise routines, or surgeries are in regular supply.
In this case, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a broad research review of obesity treatments, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Inquirer succinctly explains that we’re talking about treatments that led to a 5% drop in body weight for about 65% of people–not a radical change, but enough to improve health markers for many people. That said, we do wish more was included on the research review: How many studies were included? What kind of studies were they? What were the limitations?
Obesity is a widespread public health problem resulting in numerous chronic conditions. This review is of high interest to anyone wanting to lose weight using evidence-based methods.
No costs were discussed, but the counseling component indeed carries a price tag. It’s critical for readers to understand what that would cost, in general terms.
The story quantifies the benefits by explaining that about 65 percent of patients lose 5 percent or more of their weight. That’s enough to earn a satisfactory rating, though we wondered 65% of what? How many patients are we referring to? And were they all following the three main treatment options discussed in the story (exercise, diet changes and counseling)? More details here would have been helpful to put the benefits in context.
There was no mention of harms in the story–although weight loss medications were discussed.
The story indicates this was a published review of obesity research, meaning it looked at a grouping of studies. But more detail was needed: What kinds of studies were these? Trials? How many of them? How many people involved? Did they have any limitations?
There was no disease mongering in the piece. Instead, there was an explanation about the state of the obesity problem in the U.S. and the resulting health consequences.
On a related note, we must say that we would prefer that news outlets not use the term “fat” in referring to people who are overweight, which this story did. It has a pejorative sting to it that is no different than referring to kids who don’t graduate from high school as “dumb” or people who suffer from alcoholism as “drunks.”
The story could have brought in some independent voices, which is why we gave it an unsatisfactory here. It did note that one of the authors had been a paid consultant for the pharmaceutical industry and for Weight Watchers, which was good to see disclosed.
The story compares alternative strategies for weight loss, although not in great detail.
The story makes it clear that there are a wide range of counseling activities that are available. The story also covers medications for weight loss and the fact that they are under-prescribed given the obesity epidemic.
The story explains this is a recently published review of the literature on treatments and interventions for obesity, with both well-known and lesser-known takeaways.
The story does not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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