And the body of the story didn’t do enough to establish how the principal finding – a change in brain imaging – may not be tied to the diet at all.
We need to do a better job of educating readers that what shows up on an imaging test sometimes has no connection to symptoms or health status.
Not applicable. The cost of a Mediterranean diet is not in question.
When you find this story online on WSJ.com, it carries the banner: “The Diet That Saves The Brain.”
There isn’t any discussion in the body of the story to back up that bold claim.
We don’t blame the reporter for this but someone at WSJ has to take responsibility for this hype.
We’ll also add this to our wish list: an explanation that higher “white-matter volume burden” is a surrogate measure of health — i.e. it does not necessarily translate to more brain damage. These white spots are often found in normal people and might not mean anything. The differences the researchers found were statistically significant, but there’s no attempt to sort out whether the changes observed are clinically meaningful.
Not applicable. No discussion of harms and we’re not sure what they would be.
The researchers actually published a long paragraph of potential limitations, which we include here to show that a simple line at the end of the story – cautioning “that the study doesn’t prove that a Mediterranean-style diet causes less brain damage and said more study is needed” – doesn’t really get at an independent evaluation of the evidence – something an independent expert could have provided as well.
The researchers wrote:
A MeDi (Mediterranean Diet) was associated with a lower WMHV (brain magnetic resonance imaging white matter hyperintensity volume) burden, a marker of small vessel damage in the brain. However, white matter hyperintensities are etiologically heterogenous and can include neurodegeneration.
…
However, our study has several limitations. We only measured food frequency at baseline, which was on average 7 years before the time of MRI WMH assessment (range, 2-14 years), and thus participants could have changed their diet before the MRI was performed. However, dietary patterns appear to be stable in other population-based studies. In addition, despite the use of a valid and reliable food frequency questionnaire to calculate MeDi scores, a potential for both random and systematic misclassification of dietary habits persists, although any misclassification is most likely to be random and thus tending to minimize an association between a MeDi and WMHV. Most studies depend on similar methods, and they are a practical approach, albeit subjective in nature. In addition, we used the traditional MeDi score method to quantify adherence, but this too has limitations because the score is based on the cohort- and sex-specific median values across 9 food categories, which does not readily allow for an examination of dose-dependent associations. However, most population-based studies have used this approach. Although the potential for confounding always exists, the persistence of associations after adjustment for many potential confounders suggests that this form of bias does not account for the associations observed. The MRI study population represents a subcohort of the overall NOMAS cohort and was younger and generally healthier than the full cohort. However, as mentioned previously, we did not observe diet differences between those who were included and excluded, again suggesting that selection into the study cohort did not bias our results. Last, MRIs to measure WMHV were only conducted once, so we are unable to infer the temporal association between the MeDi and development of WMHs.
One might argue that the story inflated the potential role of white matter hyperintensities, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one.
No independent perspective provided and – if the journalist isn’t going to do a critical analysis of the evidence – then an independent perspective is sorely needed in such stories.
The story didn’t even include a line about other stroke prevention research – dietary or otherwise.
Not applicable. The availability of components of the Mediterranean diet is not in question.
The story reported:
It’s the first study to specifically examine the effects of the diet centered around vegetables, fruits, fish, whole grains, nuts, olive oil and a moderate amount of alcohol, with limited consumption of red meat, sweets and refined grains like white bread or white rice—on the brain’s small blood vessels.
Previous studies have suggested adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, stroke and cognitive disorders like Alzheimer’s disease.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release. We do know that it included no direct quotes, no independent perspectives.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
David K
February 20, 2012 at 10:23 amYour questions are formed in such a way as to require “YES”/”NO” answers, yet you answer them “Satisfactory” and “Unsatisfactory.” Please change the answers or the questions. It irritates me, as a reader with a modicum of education, and you “sound” ridiculous. You might consider a Yes——–No continuum, if “yes” and “no” seem too abrupt to your editors.
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