Using language like this is simply not appropriate nor accurate to describe the findings from an observational study:
“slash risk”…”reduce the risk”…”reduced risk was more pronounced in women than in men”…”protective effect”…”melanoma risk was reduced the most”
When, oh when, will such news organizations become aware of and follow our carefully-prepared guidelines on the importance of language in describing such studies?
We email someone from each news organization whenever one of their stories is reviewed. Anyone listening at MSNBC.com?
Stories like this may simply become part of the background noise that overwhelms news consumers in the daily drumbeat of health care news coverage. That’s why this matters.
Not applicable. The cost of Vitamin A is not in question, although the amount we collectively spend on supplements — most of which are probably unnecessary — is substantial.
At least in clearly describing the study’s findings, the story spelled out the absolute numbers:
Among the 59,000 people in the study who had never taken vitamin A supplements, there were 506 cases of melanoma, while among the 5,800 people who were currently taking it and had used it regularly over the past 10 years, there were 28 cases.
Providing these data as a percentage in addition may have helped some people interpret them, though.
The story included the caution “that taking too much vitamin A could lead to such harmful conditions as birth defects, liver problems and bone loss.
As mentioned in the summary above, the story didn’t include one caveat about the limitations of drawing conclusions from observational studies.
A dermatologist not involved in the study was quoted.
The story discussed Vitamin A supplements and foods containing the vitamin.
And from a risk perspective, the story noted:
Reducing sunlight exposure has long been recommended to reduce the risk of melanoma. This includes limiting time in direct sunlight, wearing sun block and avoiding tanning beds.
Unfortunately, not all melanoma is a result of sun exposure. There is also a strong genetic component.
The availability of Vitamin A from different sources was clear in the story
There wasn’t enough context provided about where this study fits into the overall picture of past/other research on this topic in this field.
Because of the independent perspective provided, we think the story showed it did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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