The headline says “fish helps reduce risk” and the body of the story talks about “effect.” Both are inaccurate.
You can’t establish cause and effect – such as risk reduction – in an observational study.
You can point to a statistical association. Period. If that’s too wordy or geeky, don’t report the story. Because to say more than that is inaccurate.
We urge all journalists to read our primer, “Does the Language Fit the Evidence? Association Versus Causation.”
We’ve written about miscommunication about observational studies many times. This is the kind of story that gives readers health news fatigue.
Not applicable. The cost of fish in the diet is not in question.
The language matters.
The story states: “The researchers found no effect in men, and no effect of omega-3 consumption on hyperplastic polyps.” (emphasis added)
Observational studies can’t prove cause and effect, so language like this just confuses the communication of the findings.
Not applicable. The harms of fish in the diet are not really in question, although some research has raised concerns about possible toxic effects of mercury found in some species.
Not one word about the limitations of drawing conclusions from observational studies.
Not applicable. In 223 words, there really wasn’t much meaningful background given at all about colon polyps.
No independent source was quoted.
The story didn’t discuss any other research in the field of colon polyp risk reduction – or even what other observational studies may have suggested about other strong associations. And there was nothing on whether these results apply to fish oil supplements, which is how many people get their omega-3s instead of eating fish.
Availability of fish is not currently in question, although its future availability has been questioned considering the rate we are overharvesting wild stocks. Stories that don’t critically evaluate these kinds of studies might conceivably contribute to the problem.
The story at least provided one line of context about past research in this field: “Animal studies have suggested that omega-3 fatty acids may have anti-cancer effects, but the results from human epidemiological studies have been inconclusive.”
It does not appear that the story relied on a news release. We couldn’t find one from the Journal. And the news release from Vanderbilt was actually far more complete than the NY Times story.
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