Depression and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are both common conditions in the US. Consequently, so any treatment that can effectively manage both conditions is an attractive one. This story about a new study looking at probiotics for depression does a good job identifying the strengths and limitations of the research, such as the small patient size and short duration of the study.
Readers get additional insights about the meaning and implications of the findings from an independent expert who was not associated with the study. This is particularly helpful in this instance since the research was funded by Nestle, and readers may be more likely to interpret the results with skepticism.
However, we think the story would have been stronger if it had dug into the measured benefits a bit more: How were symptoms measured–and by how much did they decrease?
People hear a lot about probiotics and it’s important they be tested systematically and in controlled trials. It’s just as important that media coverage highlights the limitations of the trials–and this story did.
Readers aren’t given information about how much the probiotic might cost.
The story states that twice as many people in the probiotic group experienced a decrease in depression scores when compared to the placebo group (64% vs. 32%). However, readers aren’t told the magnitude of the decrease in depression scores (did their depression decrease a little bit or a whole lot?). This is important information to include as it speaks to the efficacy of the probiotic supplement as a potential treatment for depression. We also wanted to know more about how symptoms were measured, and if researchers used a clinically validated tool to do so.
For use of probiotics as a potential treatment for IBS, the story does discuss that no significant differences were found in improvement of symptoms between the groups.
The story states that no serious side effects of the probiotic were reported, and this is sufficient for Satisfactory rating.
Ideally it would have provided additional information about what would constitute a “serious” side effect. With the way the story is worded, it’s possible that other side effects were reported by study participants. This is important information to have in order to compare to other treatments for depression or IBS.
The research study was a randomized controlled trial, which is considered the gold standard in study design, and the story does a good job of not overstating the research findings. It notes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend probiotics as a treatment for depression, and that larger independent trials are needed to confirm the findings.
There is a discussion early in the story that the research was funded by Nestle. The story also incorporates opinions from a research scientist who was not involved with the study who provides additional insights about the study’s findings.
The story does address another type of probiotic, lactobacilli, noting that previous research has found the type of probiotic used in the current research, bifidobacteria, to be better at improving gastrointestinal symptoms.
Although it appears close to the end, the story does state that the probiotic used in the study is not commercially available.
The story does a good job of establishing where the true novelty of the research lies, which is in the study population used (individuals without IBS and depression or anxiety).
By incorporating perspectives from an independent expert, the story does a good job of not relying solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
NO! NO! NO! @TheHeartOrg - This study was on rabbits, and is at least 2 yrs away from human trials. THAT should be the headline, not "breakthrough". Journalists, pls check this @HealthNewsRevu toolkit when writing about animal studies. https://t.co/QFznfsn4ag https://t.co/L1WIStfV8G
2
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