Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Story

Will drinking coffee extend your life? STAT delivers a 5-star answer

Will drinking coffee extend your life?

Our Review Summary

coffeeThis STAT story does an exemplary job of describing, and putting into context, yet another observational study of the possible links between coffee consumption and health, this one concluding that overall, whether decaf or regular, coffee is associated with reduced risk of death from heart disease, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease, although not cancer. The great strengths of the story include links to notable previous studies that explain the confusing “backstory” of the coffee consumption/health risk debate among researchers and consumers, along with one of the best definitions of the limitations of observational studies this reviewer has read in a news article. The STAT story gets the quantification and qualification issues down, but also goes the extra mile in noting a strong example of how observational studies can fail consumers and professionals (post-menopausal hormone safety), and in entertainingly giving readers a useful take-home message — drink up, but  but understand that while the health benefits are “strongly suggestive,” they are “not definitive.” Extra credits goes to STAT for noting the absolute mortality risk reduction this way: “coffee would [keep] 1 person in 1000 from dying” each year — something a competing CNN story on the same study lacked.

 

Why This Matters

Readers and viewers of mass media have been nearly whiplashed by claims and counterclaims related to the benefits and risks of coffee drinking. A few studies over the past several decades have concluded that, at least in large amounts, coffee can be “toxic,” but most of the coverage has focused on the drink’s possible health benefits, but in ways that led to substantial confusion. The new analysis, described in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, has some significant statistical assets not present in previous studies, including a subset analysis of non-smokers’ death risks. Its central finding — that coffee safely confers health benefits (essentially reduced death risks for some major categories of disease) even in relatively high doses among non-smokers — is likely to be reassuring to coffee addicts — and their physicians.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Arguably, most people know how much their java habit costs them every day, and neither this STAT story nor the competing CNN coverage mentioned costs. Like hazelnut cream, some mention of the overall cost of the coffee habit in the U.S. would have added some flavor, but this omission gets a pass.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

STAT’s story, like the coverage in CNN, gets the details, strengths and weaknesses of the data right, but STAT’s piece more precisely quantifies the findings and goes to exceptional lengths to clearly describe what an observational study can and cannot do, and did and did not do in this current piece of analysis.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

This STAT story explained the slightly increased risk of death in those participants in the current study who drank very high amounts of coffee,

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

STAT does a fine job of noting the sources of information used in the new analysis, and repeating — in novel ways — the shortcomings and strengths of the findings.  This kind of repetition, although frowned upon in journalistic circles because of space constraints, should be used more often where appropriate to remind readers of the context of each health claim in a story. The CNN story covering this research did a creditable job of describing the data, but how refreshing it is to see how smoothly a news article can reinforce take-home messages in a way readers will understand and remember.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The STAT story included not just any  “outside” expert comment, but chose  a co-author of a seminal 2013 study, whose professional credibility added to the story’s. And unlike the CNN story, it offered details of the ongoing epidemiological studies from which the new data were drawn.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Applicable

We thought that a comparison of alternatives to coffee was beyond the scope of the story.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

Coffee is widely available, and that’s obvious from the story.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The STAT story, like its CNN counterpart, duly noted the novelty of the researchers’ analysis of the non-smoker subset of records analysis, and STAT did so with a bit more easily-accessible language.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The STAT story was well researched, offering links that could form a small “bibliography” of relevant studies and using an outside commentator to put the new findings in perspective.

Total Score: 8 of 8 Satisfactory

Comments (4)

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Laurence Alter

November 24, 2015 at 5:08 am

Can we know who or what “STAT” is?
Laurence Alter

Reply

    Kevin Lomangino

    November 24, 2015 at 8:47 am

    http://www.statnews.com/about/

    Kevin Lomangino
    Managing Editor

    Reply

      Laurence Alter

      November 25, 2015 at 12:34 am

      Dear Kevin,
      You are managing editor: possibly you could omit the use of abbreviations (or cutesy pharmaceutical colloquialisms no regular layperson knows) and manage the English language and the representation of your organization better.
      Laurence Alter
      E-mail: questioning@mail.com

      Kevin Lomangino

      November 27, 2015 at 9:27 pm

      Dear Laurence,

      STAT is the name of the news organization that published the story, not an abbreviation or colloquialism. I thought that was readily apparent from the context. One need only click on the hyperlinked “STAT” logo to ascertain this.

      Regards,

      Kevin Lomangino
      Managing Editor