Overall, this story addressed our criteria.
The big picture is that this is a small study, funded by pharma that showed a benefit for soy. Put in the context of the many randomized clinical trials that have looked at this issue over the past decade, there are questions about this finding, and the story puts those doubts in readers’ minds.
Many women may not feel comfortable taking hormone replacement therapy to relieve symptoms of menopause, but are interested in something to reduce uncomfortable symptoms. However, studies of supplements or over-the-counter remedies need to be conducted in the same populations for which the products are marketed.
It’s interesting that this study in China showed a benefit. Historically, anthropologic studies of Asian women have reported that they don’t tend to report hot flashes. Whether this is due to high estrogen in the diet (e.g., soy) or to cultural/communication factors is not known. Multiple randomized clinical trials in the US and Europe have showed no benefit from soy despite many attempts to find one.
Soy supplements are over the counter so the price may vary. Story cites estimate.
There was a discussion about the reductions of symptoms among patients in the study in both relative and absolute terms. Would have liked a better idea if the levels in the study among Chinese women are what American women also experience.
In most prior studies of hot flashes, the frequency has been much higher in study subjects – more like 5 – 10 per day, not per week. So, as commenter in story notes, these Chinese women were not very symptomatic compared to their American counterparts.
There was a brief mention of harms that the National Institutes of Health list for soy supplements, but no mention of side effects experienced by women in the study.
The story did highlight the sample size was small and the number of hot flashes reported by the women in the study was low.
The journalist interviewed an American researcher who did not agree with the study results and had conducted other studies using soy supplements and did not find any significant effects. Also, it was stated the supplements in the study were provided by Frutarom Netherlands – a private company that sells soy supplements over the counter in the U.S.
The story states that “The standard drug treatment for stubborn menopause symptoms is hormone replacement therapy. But doctors and women have become increasingly wary of that option because of serious side effects such as increased risk for heart attack, stroke and breast cancer.”
Not applicable. Soy supplements are over-the-counter products sold in most health stores.
The story at least establishes that there has been other past research on soy supplements and hot flashes, quoting an American researcher.
The journalist sought out another expert in the field who had conducted similar studies in the U.S. without the same findings.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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