In a race to the incomplete news coverage, news about a study published in the journal menopause, "the moderate alcohol consumption reduces the biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women," can overcome the news earlier in the week from a BMJ paper on alcohol and arthritis – both in volume and in the absence of key restrictions.
This was a small study of short term in just 40 women. Still look as final are the statements in this sampling of headlines:
Nightly glass of wine may protect bones female Boomer
Cocktails can prevent bone loss
Ladies drink for health (bone)
DRINK UP FOR STRONG BONES
Bottoms up, ladies! Moderate drinking can be good for your bones
Drink increases bone health: study
Good news for drinkers! A glass of wine per day ' protects women against the fragile ...
Let's drink to that! Two glasses of wine per day ends the misery of menopause
"Although there is substantial evidence that moderate alcohol consumption correlates with higher density of bone mass in postmenopausal women, is far less clear whether drinking alcohol decreases the rate of fracture," the authors write. "So even if drinking had no detrimental effect, it would be imprudent to recommend drinking with the purpose of preventing fractures."
Previously the story took care to explain:
Researchers followed certain blood markers of bone health throughout and thought these markers of bone density positively correlated with alcohol consumption: in other words, the more the Women drank within moderate range, seemed the best of your bone health.
I added the emphasis in red to stress that – in other words – this study looked at only a surrogate marker. Should women worry with a marker of blood? Or should they care about real results as fractures? This study did not show anything about the latter. That doesn't make it unimportant. Research is intriguing. But the news coverage generally do not point this important limitation. Exaggerated stories and exaggerated.
Maybe the journalists were seduced by the comments of researchers: "the results presented here have a clear message to public health, as well as for practicing clinicians Advisory and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis." It seems a little on the top, given the limitations that we have highlighted.
Journalists and consumers must read our little primer, "surrogate markers may not tell the whole story." Journalists need to ask themselves: what was the result that is being studied? What was the endpoint? How many people? For how long? What to say and what we say about the importance of this?
(Photo credit: Thoursie on stock.xchng)
0 comments:
Post a Comment