This was a very complete analysis of an intriguing, but limited, research finding. The story addressed all 10 of our criteria. The strong caveat in the second sentence – and others later – leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind.
It’s OK to report on preliminary findings when you question the quality of the evidence as clearly as this story did.
The story explained that alginate as an aid to weight loss is already available in pill form, selling for around $45 for a seven-day supply.
The story quantified the weight loss, with caveats about “no significant difference between the two treatment groups when all 96 original participants were included in the analysis.
The story was clear about the unpleasant nature of the supplement – and how it contributed to study dropouts. And the story mentioned concerns about long term safety – with some study participants having bloating, nausea, and diarrhea. The story also noted that blood pressure did not drop as much in the supplement group as with placebo, perhaps due to the sodium content of the supplement.
Excellent job explaining the caveats and limitations of the research.
Two independent sources were quoted. Industry funding for the study was disclosed.
There was an important reminder that “just feeling less hungry due to a supplement won’t make you lose weight unless you eat fewer calories.” The story could have mentioned other evidence-based weight loss approaches including behavioral weight loss counseling.
The fact that alginate is already available in pill form – and that the FDA does not regulate such supplements – was mentioned.
References to past research on seaweed supplements were made.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kip Hansen
June 15, 2012 at 4:55 pmExcellently done — kudos to the new Science Journalist! A++
Linda Bacon
June 27, 2012 at 4:58 pmI’m a researcher who specializes in weight regulation. Normally, I find myself very much aligned with your critiques. But not here. I think you need to consider different standards when considering weight loss claims, for so many reasons, the largest being that while many, many things can result in short-term weight loss, all studies conducted over the long term show that the majority of people regain the lost weight (and sometimes more). You may want to consider that if something is showing short term weight loss like this study, that may actually be a sign that it is damaging, the idea being that most people will regain the weight and that weight cycling poses health risk. If you’d like to learn more about how to evaluate weight loss studies, there are two (peer-reviewed) articles I recommend: Weight Science: Evaluating the Evidence for a paradigm shift (http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9) and Validity of claims made in weight management research (http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/30).
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