Tag Archives: research

Aging eyes deserve evidence-based reporting, research

Liz Seegert

About Liz Seegert

Liz Seegert (@lseegert), AHCJ’s topic leader on aging, is writing blog posts, editing tip sheets and articles and gathering resources to help our members cover the many issues around our aging society. If you have questions or suggestions for future resources on the topic, please send them to liz@healthjournalism.org.

Aging eyes

Photo by 8 Eyes Photography via Flickr

Sitting in the waiting room of my ophthalmologist’s office was an elderly man, who I later learned was 100 years old, perhaps 102, no one was sure.

He could walk with the help of his aide and a sturdy cane and his cognition seemed good. My doctor later told me that this gentleman’s eyesight was as good or better than someone 20 or 25 years younger.

It got me thinking about what happens to our eyes as we age.

Why do some people maintain good vision well into their 90s while others struggle with serious visual decline at a younger age? Loss of vision significantly impacts a senior’s independence, which in turn, may lead to depression. Continue reading

Steak and eggs: Putting science, health news into context

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

Steak and eggs

Photo by avlxyz via Flickr

Is it just me, or do medical journals seem to have a knack for publishing conflicting findings on the same topic within the very same week?

That’s what happened earlier this month when the journal Nature Medicine published a fascinating paper that linked a chemical plentiful in red meat, l-carnitine, to the acceleration of atherosclerosis in mice. Researchers also found convincing evidence that when l-carnitine is converted into another chemical, called TMAO, by gut bacteria it may also be linked to heart disease in people. (For an engrossing account of these experiments and the science behind them, check out Gina Kolata’s story for The New York Times.)

A few days later, I ran across this headline: “L-Carnitine Significantly Improves Patient Outcomes Following Heart Attack.” C’mon now. Really? First l-carnitine is bad for the heart, now it’s beneficial? Continue reading

Does this state make my butt look big?

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

A study published this month in the journal Obesity reports that the largest percentage of obese people in the United States live in the Great Plains, not in the South, as surveys have long indicated.

Researchers found 41 percent obesity in a census region that includes Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, while the East Central South region—Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky – weighed in with 31 percent obesity. Mississippi and Alabama have long ranked first and second as the most obese states in the nation, according to data compiled by the CDC.

The study suggests the dubious honor of being the fattest region in the U.S. should go to the nation’s breadbasket, not to the buckle of its BBQ belt.

“That’s a pretty big difference,” said senior author George Howard, Dr.P.H., chair of biostatistics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Don’t get me wrong, 31 percent obesity is not good, but it’s not the worst.”

The difference is important, too, because these kinds of rankings often help determine which states get federal public health dollars for research and anti-obesity campaigns.

How could this happen? Blame a problem that bedevils all kinds of research: self-reported data. Continue reading

Reporter’s advice can help you get past sources’ jargon

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

Kathleen Doheny

Kathleen Doheny

If you’ve interviewed anyone with an M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. or Sc.D. after his or her name, you know: It’s often no easy feat to get your sources to speak in everyday language.

You start off the interview asking a simple, straightforward question but get a reply that, should you actually use it verbatim, is bound to make your editor cry, at best.

Freelance journalist Kathleen Doheny has come up with some strategies to coax more usable language out of sources. Find out what the “java approach” is, ways to suggest to your source that they use more reader-friendly words and how to coach them through the interview.

Was a study of chelation fatally flawed or just countercultural?

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

This is the second of two posts about a study of whether chelation therapy might benefit some patients who have suffered a heart attack. In the first post, I gave health reporters high marks for their coverage.

Early in my career, I covered a story on chelation therapy. It was the first time I’d ever heard of the alternative treatment. I was a broadcast producer, and we needed video, so we visited a chelation clinic. Looking back, I can’t recall what our story was about, but I do remember what it was like to talk to the patients as they sat in recliners that lined the walls of the narrow storefront.

They were all hooked up to IV bags filled with a vivid yellow liquid that was a mixture of B-vitamins and the chemical EDTA that they believed was flushing heavy metals, minerals, and toxins from their bodies.

Many spoke of chelation with fervor. One man, a diabetic, credited the regular three-hour infusions with saving his legs, which were riddled with sores.

Chelation has been around for decades. It is accepted treatment for lead poisoning and other kinds of heavy metal toxicity. But alternative practitioners have greatly expanded its use, with claims that it can treat myriad ills, everything from autism to Alzheimer’s to problems caused by metal hip implants.  There’s almost no scientific evidence to back up these claims.

It was against this backdrop – lots of claims, enthusiastic patients, evangelistic providers – that the NIH set out to test the practice.

The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy, or TACT, has again ignited a heated debate among doctors.

Here’s another voice to add to the discussion. He is lead study author Gervasio A. Lamas, M.D., chairman of medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Fla., and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University Division of Cardiology. I asked him to talk about the process of publishing TACT and asked him to respond to a few of the main criticisms of the trial. These are lightly edited questions and answers from our interview: Continue reading

Health reporters deserve high marks for chelation coverage

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

In case you missed it, health reporters who cover medical studies had a shining moment recently. It centered around the heavily stage-managed publication of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy, or TACT.

TACT was a 10-year double-blind, randomized controlled study of 1,708 patients that was carried out at 134 sites in the U.S. and Canada. It cost the government and, by extension, taxpayers, $31 million. About 60 percent of the sites were traditional chelation centers – some of which had shaky legal histories, the rest were traditional cardiology practices and academic medical centers, including Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and the Mayo Clinic. Continue reading

The downside of using big data in medical research

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

A scientific scuffle played out in the pages of the Lancet recently. At issue was whether a team of scientists led by Dr. Damien Cruse at the University of Western Ontario had successfully used EEG, a test that measures the electrical activity of the brain, to detect awareness in brain-damaged patients who were in a vegetative state, a finding they first reported in 2011.

Other scientists who were working on the problem of awareness had been gobsmacked by the results.

Patients in vegetative states eventually open their eyes. They wake and sleep. But otherwise they have little awareness of what’s going on around them. Some of their reflexes may still be intact but, according to diagnostic criteria, they don’t respond to commands or understand language.

To show that 3 out of 16 of these patients were able to follow verbal instructions to imagine opening and closing a fist or wiggling their toes at the sound of a series of beeps was “pretty impressive,” says Andrew Goldfine, M.D., a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical College and Burke Medical Research Institute in New York. Continue reading

Big data is coming to a study near you

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

Photo by bionicteaching via Flickr

As social networks and search engines catalog our every click and keystroke, they generate billions or even trillions of data points about how and why we do the things we do. Companies trying to parse those disparate bits for clues about consumers have come up with a name for all that information – big data.

Broadly, big data is about using computers to search for patterns in huge amounts of information. And as columnists for The New York Times and NPR recently opined, 2012 was big data’s breakout year.

Big data played a huge role in the strategy and prediction of the election. It was lampooned in comics. It even became a meme among the kind of folks who get the wonky punch lines on “The Big Bang Theory.”

I started the year uneasy with big data. I was hearing the term everywhere, but had only the shallowest understanding of what it meant or why it was important.  I had no idea if or how it might be relevant to covering medical studies.

Here’s the short answer: It is. And if you cover research, you need to understand it and be able to ask questions about it. Continue reading

Lessons from a soda study that lost its fizz

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

Last October, Brigham and Women’s Hospital took the unusual step of recalling a press release about a research study.

Just hours before the study’s embargo lifted, Brigham’s press officers asked the researchers to stop giving interviews, and barely half an hour before the story went live, they alerted the press that the study’s data was “weak.”

People involved in the decision say it’s the first time the Harvard-affiliated hospital had ever publicly pulled its support for a study.

Of course, Brigham’s disavowal of the research became the headline instead:

Since Brigham’s decision not to promote the study, I reached out to the hospital’s media team, the study authors, and the editor of the journal that published the study to get their perspectives. They agreed to help me because they want health reporters to understand the pitfalls of promoting science, and how that effort can sometimes veer too far from a study’s actual findings. Continue reading

Aspirin study causes headaches for journalists

Brenda Goodman

About Brenda Goodman

Brenda Goodman (@GoodmanBrenda), an Atlanta-based freelancer, is AHCJ’s topic leader on medical studies, curating related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on medical study resources and tip sheets at brenda@healthjournalism.org.

Along with a story on aspirin and macular degeneration, my editors got a panicked note from me recently: “I struggled with the numbers on this one, and may not have gotten them right,”I wrote.

Odds are that I wasn’t the only reporter puzzling over the numbers in this study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That’s because some of them were made up, apparently by a journal editor.

The error added a scary statistic to research that was already generating some pretty alarming health headlines (i.e. “Aspirin Ups Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration,” courtesy of a website for doctors called Clinical Advisor.)

To make matters worse, the mistake got repeated in the press release. (Et tu, media relations team?)

Thankfully, it seems many health reporters noticed something was amiss and left the wrong numbers out of their stories. Continue reading