To back up our goal of improving the public dialogue about health care interventions, we offer these tips for analyzing studies and health care claims and interventions, aimed at helping both journalists and consumers.
We also offer writing tips for health care journalists that touch upon some of these issues.
- Absolute vs. relative risk
- Animal & lab studies
- Biohype bibliography
- Be careful with composite endpoints/outcomes
- Conflicts of interest in healthcare, academics, public relations and journalism
- Phases of drug trials
- Medical devices
- FDA approval not guaranteed
- Is the claim legit or just health fear-mongering?
- How much will it cost?
- Intention-to-treat analysis
- NNT: number needed to treat
- Non-inferiority trials
- Observational studies: association vs causation
- Odds ratios
- “Off-label” drug use and marketing
- Understanding medical tests: Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value
- News from scientific meetings
- Small studies: Be vigilant when writing about them and skeptical when reading about them
- Mixed messages about statistical significance
- Subgroup analysis: 3 reasons to be suspicious
- Surrogate markers may not tell the whole story
Comments (6)
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.
Kathi Mestayer
November 28, 2016 at 4:20 pmJust wondering if you are familiar with ConsumerLab.com. They claim to conduct independent testing of nutritional supplements for content and solubility. Are they solid?
Kevin Lomangino
November 28, 2016 at 9:32 pmKathi,
We are not familiar with that organization and, unfortunately, can’t offer any advice on the quality of information they provide.
Kevin Lomangino
Managing Editor
Erick Turner
September 25, 2017 at 10:15 amI think they would be good if they would stick to their core function, testing dietary supplements for identity, purity, etc, and providing info on relative pricing. They can also provide good info on interactions w/ drugs. Unfortunately they overreach by getting into the issue of efficacy. For example, right now on their website, they have a story entitled “Lutein, Zeaxanthin and Vision Formulas Vary Widely – Which Vision Supplement Is Right for You?” Better if they had stopped after “widely” and not suggest that “you” really need this supplement.
Gary Fradin
September 25, 2017 at 11:59 amI think your list is excellent but unsure it’s practical.
21 important things to consider is simply too many, especially for topics as complex as these.
Can you shed light on how people actually use these tips? Which most frequently? Which most commonly misunderstood?
Kevin Lomangino
September 25, 2017 at 1:27 pmGary,
This is a list for consumers and journalists who wish to dive deeper on specific topics. These are not tips that everyone needs to think about for every news report about a study.
For a quicker, more practical overview of things to look for when reading about or writing about health care, please see our 10 criteria. We think these criteria address the basic issues that consumers need to know in order to develop informed opinions about health care interventions – and how/whether they matter in their lives.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Kevin Lomangino
Managing Editor
Laurie Michelle
August 3, 2018 at 7:39 pmHealth fear-mongering is something I need to be more aware of, both in my research and my blogging style. It’s natural for many of us to worry about health issues, but without due diligence, health “information” can prove to be useless (or worse – harmful).
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.