How do science journalists decide whether a psychology study is worth covering?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Complex research papers and data flood academic journals daily, and science journalists play a pivotal role in disseminating that information to the public. This can be a daunting task, requiring a keen understanding of the subject matter and the ability to translate dense academic language into narratives that resonate with the general public.
Several resources and tip sheets, including the Know Your Research section here at The Journalist’s Resource, aim to help journalists hone their skills in reporting on academic research.
But what factors do science journalists look for to decide whether a social science research study is trustworthy and newsworthy? That’s the question researchers at the University of California, Davis, and the University of Melbourne in Australia examine in a recent study, “How Do Science Journalists Evaluate Psychology Research?” published in September in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.
Their online survey of 181 mostly U.S.-based science journalists looked at how and whether they were influenced by four factors in fictitious research summaries: the sample size (number of participants in the study), sample representativeness (whether the participants in the study were from a convenience sample or a more representative sample), the statistical significance level of the result (just barely statistically significant or well below the significance threshold), and the prestige of a researcher’s university.
The researchers found that sample size was the only factor that had a robust influence on journalists’ ratings of how trustworthy and newsworthy a study finding was.
University prestige had no effect, while the effects of sample representativeness and statistical significance were inconclusive.
But there’s nuance to the findings, the authors note.
“I don’t want people to think that science journalists aren’t paying attention to other things, and are only paying attention to sample size,” says Julia Bottesini, an independent researcher, a recent Ph.D. graduate from the Psychology Department at UC Davis, and the first author of the study.
Overall, the results show that “these journalists are doing a very decent job” vetting research findings, Bottesini says.
Also, the findings from the study are not generalizable to all science journalists or other fields of research, the authors note.
“Instead, our conclusions should be circumscribed to U.S.-based science journalists who are at least somewhat familiar with the statistical and replication challenges facing science,” they write. (Over the past decade a series of projects have found that the results of many studies in psychology and other fields can’t be reproduced, leading to what has been called a ‘replication crisis.’)
“This [study] is just one tiny brick in the wall and I hope other people get excited about this topic and do more research on it,” Bottesini says.
More on the study’s findings
The study’s findings can be useful for researchers who want to better understand how science journalists read their research and what kind of intervention — such as teaching journalists about statistics — can help journalists better understand research papers.
“As an academic, I take away the idea that journalists are a great population to try to study because they’re doing something really important and it’s important to know more about what they’re doing,” says Ellen Peters, director of Center for Science Communication Research at the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon. Peters, who was not involved in the study, is also a psychologist who studies human judgment and decision-making.
Peters says the study was “overall terrific.” She adds that understanding how journalists do their work “is an incredibly important thing to do because journalists are who reach the majority of the U.S. with science news, so understanding how they’re reading some of our scientific studies and then choosing whether to write about them or not is important.”
The study, conducted between December 2020 and March 2021, is based on an online survey of journalists who said they at least sometimes covered science or other topics related to health, medicine, psychology, social sciences, or well-being. They were offered a $25 Amazon gift card as compensation.
Among the participants, 77% were women, 19% were men, 3% were nonbinary and 1% preferred not to say. About 62% said they had studied physical or natural sciences at the undergraduate level, and 24% at the graduate level. Also, 48% reported having a journalism degree. The study did not include the journalists’ news reporting experience level.
Participants were recruited through the professional network of Christie Aschwanden, an independent journalist and consultant on the study, which could be a source of bias, the authors note.
“Although the size of the sample we obtained (N = 181) suggests we were able to collect a range of perspectives, we suspect this sample is biased by an ‘Aschwanden effect’: that science journalists in the same professional network as C. Aschwanden will be more familiar with issues related to the replication crisis in psychology and subsequent methodological reform, a topic C. Aschwanden has covered extensively in her work,” they write.
Participants were randomly presented with eight of 22 one-paragraph fictitious social and personality psychology research summaries with fictitious authors. The summaries are posted on Open Science Framework, a free and open-source project management tool for researchers by the Center for Open Science, with a mission to increase openness, integrity and reproducibility of research.
For instance, one of the vignettes reads:
“Scientists at Harvard University announced today the results of a study exploring whether introspection can improve cooperation. 550 undergraduates at the university were randomly assigned to either do a breathing exercise or reflect on a series of questions designed to promote introspective thoughts for 5 minutes. Participants then engaged in a cooperative decision-making game, where cooperation resulted in better outcomes. People who spent time on introspection performed significantly better at these cooperative games (t (548) = 3.21, p = 0.001). ‘Introspection seems to promote better cooperation between people,’ says Dr. Quinn, the lead author on the paper.”
In addition to answering multiple-choice survey questions, participants were given the opportunity to answer open-ended questions, such as “What characteristics do you [typically] consider when evaluating the trustworthiness of a scientific finding?”
Bottesini says those responses illuminated how science journalists analyze a research study. Participants often mentioned the prestige of the journal in which it was published or whether the study had been peer-reviewed. Many also seemed to value experimental research designs over observational studies.
Considering statistical significance
When it came to considering p-values, “some answers suggested that journalists do take statistical significance into account, but only very few included explanations that suggested they made any distinction between higher or lower p values; instead, most mentions of p values suggest journalists focused on whether the key result was statistically significant,” the authors write.
Also, many participants mentioned that it was very important to talk to outside experts or researchers in the same field to get a better understanding of the finding and whether it could be trusted, the authors write.
“Journalists also expressed that it was important to understand who funded the study and whether the researchers or funders had any conflicts of interest,” they write.
Participants also “indicated that making claims that were calibrated to the evidence was also important and expressed misgivings about studies for which the conclusions do not follow from the evidence,” the authors write.
In response to the open-ended question, “What characteristics do you [typically] consider when evaluating the trustworthiness of a scientific finding?” some journalists wrote they checked whether the study was overstating conclusions or claims. Below are some of their written responses:
- “Is the researcher adamant that this study of 40 college kids is representative? If so, that’s a red flag.”
- “Whether authors make sweeping generalizations based on the study or take a more measured approach to sharing and promoting it.”
- “Another major point for me is how ‘certain’ the scientists appear to be when commenting on their findings. If a researcher makes claims which I consider to be over-the-top about the validity or impact of their findings, I often won’t cover.”
- “I also look at the difference between what an experiment actually shows versus the conclusion researchers draw from it — if there’s a big gap, that’s a huge red flag.”
Peters says the study’s findings show that “not only are journalists smart, but they have also gone out of their way to get educated about things that should matter.”
What other research shows about science journalists
A 2023 study, published in the International Journal of Communication, based on an online survey of 82 U.S. science journalists, aims to understand what they know and think about open-access research, including peer-reviewed journals and articles that don’t have a paywall, and preprints. Data was collected between October 2021 and February 2022. Preprints are scientific studies that have yet to be peer-reviewed and are shared on open repositories such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. The study finds that its respondents “are aware of OA and related issues and make conscious decisions around which OA scholarly articles they use as sources.”
A 2021 study, published in the Journal of Science Communication, looks at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of science journalists. Based on an online survey of 633 science journalists from 77 countries, it finds that the pandemic somewhat brought scientists and science journalists closer together. “For most respondents, scientists were more available and more talkative,” the authors write. The pandemic has also provided an opportunity to explain the scientific process to the public, and remind them that “science is not a finished enterprise,” the authors write.
More than a decade ago, a 2008 study, published in PLOS Medicine, and based on an analysis of 500 health news stories, found that “journalists usually fail to discuss costs, the quality of the evidence, the existence of alternative options, and the absolute magnitude of potential benefits and harms,” when reporting on research studies. Giving time to journalists to research and understand the studies, giving them space for publication and broadcasting of the stories, and training them in understanding academic research are some of the solutions to fill the gaps, writes Gary Schwitzer, the study author.
Advice for journalists
We asked Bottesini, Peters, Aschwanden and Tamar Wilner, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas, who was not involved in the study, to share advice for journalists who cover research studies. Wilner is conducting a study on how journalism research informs the practice of journalism. Here are their tips:
1. Examine the study before reporting it.
Does the study claim match the evidence? “One thing that makes me trust the paper more is if their interpretation of the findings is very calibrated to the kind of evidence that they have,” says Bottesini. In other words, if the study makes a claim in its results that’s far-fetched, the authors should present a lot of evidence to back that claim.
Not all surprising results are newsworthy. If you come across a surprising finding from a single study, Peters advises you to step back and remember Carl Sagan’s quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
How transparent are the authors about their data? For instance, are the authors posting information such as their data and the computer codes they use to analyze the data on platforms such as Open Science Framework, AsPredicted, or The Dataverse Project? Some researchers ‘preregister’ their studies, which means they share how they’re planning to analyze the data before they see them. “Transparency doesn’t automatically mean that a study is trustworthy,” but it gives others the chance to double-check the findings, Bottesini says.
Look at the study design. Is it an experimental study or an observational study? Observational studies can show correlations but not causation.
“Observational studies can be very important for suggesting hypotheses and pointing us towards relationships and associations,” Aschwanden says.
Experimental studies can provide stronger evidence toward a cause, but journalists must still be cautious when reporting the results, she advises. “If we end up implying causality, then once it’s published and people see it, it can really take hold,” she says.
Know the difference between preprints and peer-reviewed, published studies. Peer-reviewed papers tend to be of higher quality than those that are not peer-reviewed. Read our tip sheet on the difference between preprints and journal articles.
Beware of predatory journals. Predatory journals are journals that “claim to be legitimate scholarly journals, but misrepresent their publishing practices,” according to a 2020 journal article, published in the journal Toxicologic Pathology, “Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them.”
2. Zoom in on data.
Read the methods section of the study. The methods section of the study usually appears after the introduction and background section. “To me, the methods section is almost the most important part of any scientific paper,” says Aschwanden. “It’s amazing to me how often you read the design and the methods section, and anyone can see that it’s a flawed design. So just giving things a gut-level check can be really important.”
What’s the sample size? Not all good studies have large numbers of participants but pay attention to the claims a study makes with a small sample size. “If you have a small sample, you calibrate your claims to the things you can tell about those people and don’t make big claims based on a little bit of evidence,” says Bottesini.
But also remember that factors such as sample size and p-value are not “as clear cut as some journalists might assume,” says Wilner.
How representative of a population is the study sample? “If the study has a non-representative sample of, say, undergraduate students, and they’re making claims about the general population, that’s kind of a red flag,” says Bottesini. Aschwanden points to the acronym WEIRD, which stands for “Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic,” and is used to highlight a lack of diversity in a sample. Studies based on such samples may not be generalizable to the entire population, she says.
Look at the p-value. Statistical significance is both confusing and controversial, but it’s important to consider. Read our tip sheet, “5 Things Journalists Need to Know About Statistical Significance,” to better understand it.
3. Talk to scientists not involved in the study.
If you’re not sure about the quality of a study, ask for help. “Talk to someone who is an expert in study design or statistics to make sure that [the study authors] use the appropriate statistics and that methods they use are appropriate because it’s amazing to me how often they’re not,” says Aschwanden.
Get an opinion from an outside expert. It’s always a good idea to present the study to other researchers in the field, who have no conflicts of interest and are not involved in the research you’re covering and get their opinion. “Don’t take scientists at their word. Look into it. Ask other scientists, preferably the ones who don’t have a conflict of interest with the research,” says Bottesini.
4. Remember that a single study is simply one piece of a growing body of evidence.
“I have a general rule that a single study doesn’t tell us very much; it just gives us proof of concept,” says Peters. “It gives us interesting ideas. It should be retested. We need an accumulation of evidence.”
Aschwanden says as a practice, she tries to avoid reporting stories about individual studies, with some exceptions such as very large, randomized controlled studies that have been underway for a long time and have a large number of participants. “I don’t want to say you never want to write a single-study story, but it always needs to be placed in the context of the rest of the evidence that we have available,” she says.
Wilner advises journalists to spend some time looking at the scope of research on the study’s specific topic and learn how it has been written about and studied up to that point.
“We would want science journalists to be reporting balance of evidence, and not focusing unduly on the findings that are just in front of them in a most recent study,” Wilner says. “And that’s a very difficult thing to as journalists to do because they’re being asked to make their article very newsy, so it’s a difficult balancing act, but we can try and push journalists to do more of that.”
5. Remind readers that science is always changing.
“Science is always two steps forward, one step back,” says Peters. Give the public a notion of uncertainty, she advises. “This is what we know today. It may change tomorrow, but this is the best science that we know of today.”
Aschwanden echoes the sentiment. “All scientific results are provisional, and we need to keep that in mind,” she says. “It doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything, but it’s very important that we don’t overstate things.”
Authors of a study published in PNAS in January analyzed more than 14,000 psychology papers and found that replication success rates differ widely by psychology subfields. That study also found that papers that could not be replicated received more initial press coverage than those that could.
The authors note that the media “plays a significant role in creating the public’s image of science and democratizing knowledge, but it is often incentivized to report on counterintuitive and eye-catching results.”
Ideally, the news media would have a positive relationship with replication success rates in psychology, the authors of the PNAS study write. “Contrary to this ideal, however, we found a negative association between media coverage of a paper and the paper’s likelihood of replication success,” they write. “Therefore, deciding a paper’s merit based on its media coverage is unwise. It would be valuable for the media to remind the audience that new and novel scientific results are only food for thought before future replication confirms their robustness.”
Additional reading
Uncovering the Research Behaviors of Reporters: A Conceptual Framework for Information Literacy in Journalism
Katerine E. Boss, et al. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, October 2022.
The Problem with Psychological Research in the Media
Steven Stosny. Psychology Today, September 2022.
Critically Evaluating Claims
Megha Satyanarayana, The Open Notebook, January 2022.
How Should Journalists Report a Scientific Study?
Charles Binkley and Subramaniam Vincent. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, September 2020.
What Journalists Get Wrong About Social Science: Full Responses
Brian Resnick. Vox, January 2016.
From The Journalist’s Resource
8 Ways Journalists Can Access Academic Research for Free
5 Things Journalists Need to Know About Statistical Significance
5 Common Research Designs: A Quick Primer for Journalists
5 Tips for Using PubPeer to Investigate Scientific Research Errors and Misconduct
What’s Standard Deviation? 4 Things Journalists Need to Know
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Red Lentils vs Soybeans – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing red lentils to soybeans, we picked the soy.
Why?
Both are excellent! But…
In terms of macros, red lentils have more than 2x the carbs and slightly more fiber, while soybeans have more than 2x the protein. So, this round’s subjective, but we’d say that the carbs are neither good nor bad as the glycemic index is fine in either case, the difference in fiber is small while the difference in protein is large, so we say soybeans win this round. Both are certainly great in all macro-related respects, though (i.e. both are good source of fiber, and lentils are already a very good source of protein; soybeans are just even better).
In the category of vitamins, red lentils have more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B7, and B9, while soybeans have more of vitamins B2, B6, C, E, K, and choline, giving soybeans a marginal victory here.
When it comes to minerals, lentils have slightly more zinc, while soybeans have a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium. An easy win for soybeans (although we must emphasize: lentils are great for all these minerals too; soy is just better).
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for soybeans, but by all means enjoy either or both; certainly both are amongst the healthiest things to eat (unless you have a soy allergy, of course), and diversity is great!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Plant vs Animal Protein: Head to Head
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
The Blood Sugar Solution – by Dr. Mark Hyman
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The main purpose of this book is combating metabolic disease, the amalgam of what’s often prediabetes (sometimes fully-fledged diabetes) and cardiovascular disease (sometimes fully-fledged heart disease).
To achieve this (after an introductory section explaining what the sociomedical problems are and why the sociomedical problems are happening), he offers a seven-step program; we’ll not keep those steps a mystery; they are:
- Boost your nutrition
- Regulate your hormones
- Reduce inflammation
- Improve your digestion
- Maximize detoxification
- Enhance energy metabolism
- Soothe your mind
Thereafter, it’s all about leading the reader by the hand through the steps; he also offers a six-week action plan, and a six-week meal plan with recipes.
The style is very sensationalist (too sensationalist for this reviewer’s personal taste) but nevertheless backed up with hard science when it comes to hard claims. So, if you don’t mind wading through (or skipping) some early chapters that are a bit “used car salesman” in feel, there’s actually a lot of good information, especially in the middle of the book, and useful practical guides in the middle and end.
Bottom line: if you want a good comprehensive science-based practical guide to addressing the risk of metabolic disease, this is that.
Click here to check out The Blood Sugar Solution, and look after yours!
Share This Post
-
How Taking Vitamin D Supplements Can Sabotage Your Vitamin D Levels
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This article’s featured image is mushrooms and sunshine, because that’s a better way to get vitamin D, especially when combined, but more on that later!
First, let’s talk supplements…
The mistake that weakens your immunity
Most people over a certain age know the importance of maintaining good vitamin D levels, especially in the context of bone health (as vitamin D is instrumental in how the body processes calcium).
However, consider for example this guest feature: Are you over 75? Here’s what you need to know about vitamin D ← you can always tell the guest articles because they will be credited to their external source, in the case of the article we just linked, it’s Dr. Elina Hypponen and Joshua Sutherland at the University of South Australia.
In that article, it talks a lot about supplementation and the importance thereof, and the difficulty in getting enough vitamin D from the sun, especially if you live somewhere that’s not so sunny. But it doesn’t talk about the differences between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3.
Regular 10almonds readers might remember about these differences; if not, here you go: Vitamin D2 vs Vitamin D3: What You Would Benefit From Knowing
This situation is the compounded by the fact that if you take supplemental vitamin D2, not only is it inferior to vitamin D3, but also, its presence in your body will reduce your own production of vitamin D3:
❝Vitamin D supplements are important, especially between October and March, when our bodies cannot make vitamin D from sunlight in the UK. However, we discovered that vitamin D2 supplements can actually decrease levels of vitamin D3 in the body, which is a previously unknown effect of taking these supplements.
This study suggests that subject to personal considerations, vitamin D3 supplements may be more beneficial for most individuals over vitamin D2❞
~ Dr Emily Brown, lead researcher of the study we’ll link shortly
This second problem creates a further, third problem, per:
❝We have shown that vitamin D3, but not vitamin D2, appears to stimulate the type I interferon signalling system in the body—a key part of the immune system that provides a first line of defence against bacteria and viruses. Thus, a healthy vitamin D3 status may help prevent viruses and bacteria from gaining a foothold in the body.
This meta-analysis highlights the importance of ensuring plant-based vitamin D3 is accessible in the UK.❞
~ Dr. Cathie Martin, another researcher on the study we’ll link shortly
With regard to all the mentions of the UK: obviously this was a British study, but physiology is the same regardless, and even if you live in a sunnier place, you will still run into the same problem of the fact that it won’t matter how sunny it is if your body is suppressing vitamin D3 production because of high levels of vitamin D2.
You can read the paper yourself, here: Effect of Vitamin D2 Supplementation on 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Open Access
What was that about combining mushrooms and sunshine?
Since mushrooms are a good source of vitamin D3, and sunshine allows us to make vitamin D3 if our vitamin D2 levels are not suppressing it, both are already good individually.
But there’s more. As we wrote in our article comparing and contrasting these two forms of vitamin D, getting a lot of sun can be bad for us in other ways (due to UV damage to our skin, acceleration of aging, increased risk of cancer, etc). We’ve also written about this previously; see: The Sun Exposure Dilemma
If, like this writer, you are a mostly crepuscular being who avoids the sun, we have good news: mushrooms can do the sunbathing for us!
❝Exposing mushrooms to UV (from sunlight or in a laboratory) increases the amount of vitamin D in mushrooms by nearly eightfold. Putting five store-bought button mushrooms in the sun, or just one portobello mushroom, produces 24 µg of vitamin D, which translates to nearly 1000 international units, providing the amount of vitamin D one needs in an entire day, and the equivalent found in most vitamin D supplements.
If you’re wondering if the vitamin D from mushrooms actually makes it into your bloodstream, it does. A recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that tanned (UV-exposed) mushrooms may be effective in increasing active vitamin D levels in adults with low levels of vitamin D, and studies (randomised controlled trials) have shown that it may be just as effective as supplements at increasing vitamin D levels in the blood (here, and here).
Some research is very positive, saying that putting your mushrooms in direct sunlight for 10–15 minutes may provide you with 100% of your daily vitamin D needs, and the vitamin D content in sunlight-exposed mushrooms may be retained with refrigeration for up to 8 days.
The production of vitamin D may be increased by a further 30% by placing them in the sun with the underside, or gills, facing up, or by 60% if you slice them.❞
Read all about it: Tan your mushrooms, not your skin
Mushrooms are also good for more reasons; we don’t want to get too off-topic, but we will drop a link to our article about ergothioneine, of which mushrooms are an excellent source:
The Magic Of Mushrooms: “The Longevity Vitamin” (That’s Not A Vitamin)
What kind of mushrooms? All kinds, but please stick to non-poisonous ones!
Want to try supplemental vitamin D3?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon 😎
But watch out with the doses, if supplementing vitamin D in either form, because…
Vit D + Calcium: Too Much Of A Good Thing? ← this also talks about safe and effective doses, and what goes wrong if you take too much
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Oh, Honey
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The Bee’s Knees?
If you’d like to pre-empt that runny nose, some say that local honey is the answer. The rationale is that bees visiting the local sources of pollen and making honey will introduce the same allergens to you in a non allergy-inducing fashion (the honey). The result? Inoculation against the allergens in question.
But does it work?
Researching this, we found a lot of articles saying there was no science to back it up.
And then! We found one solitary study from 2013, and the title was promising:
But we don’t stop at titles; that’s not the kind of newsletter we are. We pride ourselves on giving good information!
And it turned out, upon reading the method and the results, that:
- Both the control and test groups also took loratadine for the first 4 weeks of the study
- The test group additionally took 1g/kg bodyweight of honey, daily—so for example if you’re 165lb (75kg), that’s about 4 tablespoons per day
- The control group took the equivalent amount of honey-flavored syrup
- Both groups showed equal improvements by week 4
- The test group only showed continued improvements (over the control group) by week 8
The researchers concluded from this:
❝Honey ingestion at a high dose improves the overall and individual symptoms of AR, and it could serve as a complementary therapy for AR.❞
We at 10almonds concluded from this:
❝That’s a lot of honey to eat every day for months!❞
We couldn’t base an article on one study from a decade ago, though! Fortunately, we found a veritable honeypot of more recent research, in the form of this systematic review:
Read: The Potential Use Of Honey As A Remedy For Allergic Diseases
…which examines 13 key studies and 43 scientific papers over the course of 21 years. That’s more like it! This was the jumping-off point we needed into more useful knowledge.
We’re not going to cite all those here—we’re a health and productivity newsletter, not an academic journal of pharmacology, but we did sift through them so that you don’t have to, and:
The researchers (of that review) concluded:
❝Although there is limited evidence, some studies showed remarkable improvements against certain types of allergic illnesses and support that honey is an effective anti-allergic agent.❞
Our (10almonds team) further observations included:
- The research review notes that a lot of studies did not confirm which phytochemical compounds specifically are responsible for causing allergic reactions and/or alleviating such (so: didn’t always control for what we’d like to know, i.e. the mechanism of action)
- Some studies showed results radically different from the rest. The reviewers put this down to differences that were not controlled-for between studies, for example:
- Some studies used very different methods to others. There may be an important difference between a human eating a tablespoon of honey, and a rat having aerosolized honey shot up its nose, for instance. We put more weight to human studies than rat studies!
- Some kinds of honey (such as manuka) contain higher quantities of gallic acid which itself can relieve allergies by chemically inhibiting the release of histamine. In other words, never mind pollen-based inoculations… it’s literally an antihistamine.
- Certain honeys (such as tualang, manuka and gelam) contain higher quantities of quercetin. What’s quercetin? It’s a plant flavonoid that a recent study has shown significantly relieves symptoms of seasonal allergies. So again, it works, just not for the reason people say!
In summary:
The “inoculation by local honey” thing specifically may indeed remain “based on traditional use only” for now.
But! Honey as a remedy for allergies, especially manuka honey, has a growing body of scientific evidence behind it.
Bottom line:
If you like honey, go for it (manuka seems best)! It may well relieve your symptoms.
If you don’t, off-the-shelf antihistamines remain a perfectly respectable option.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What is hyaluronic acid – and is it OK for kids and teens to use this common skincare ingredient?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Earlier this month, Kmart pulled a “hyaluronic acid cleansing balm” from its shelves, after a teen who used the skincare product was hospitalised, reporting eye pain and blurred vision. It’s unclear what ingredient caused this reaction.
In a statement, Kmart said it was removing the product while conducting an investigation. The retailer also said:
We want to assure our customers that our cosmetics are designed to ensure that they comply with both Australian and European requirements on ingredients.
Hyaluronic acid – despite the name – is a gentle ingredient commonly used in skincare products.
But what does hyaluronic acid do to your skin as a skincare ingredient? And is it safe for tweens and teens?
Sabinayro/Shutterstock What is hyaluronic acid?
Hyaluronic acid is a glycosaminoglycan – a sugar-based molecule found naturally in the skin, eyes, joint fluid and connective tissue.
It plays a key role in hydrating the skin and tissues, lubricating our joints and supporting tissue repair.
Beyond cosmetics, hyaluronic acid is used in drug delivery, regenerative medicine, wound repair, and to treat conditions such as atherosclerosis (where the arterial walls harden and narrow) and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease).
It is also a key ingredient in many eye drops and contact lens care solutions.
How is it used in skincare?
While the word “acid” might suggest it is harsh and potentially damaging to the skin, hyaluronic acid is not used in its acidic form in skincare products. It is usually used in its salt form, sodium hyaluronate.
In skincare, active acids such as salicylic acid usually lower the skin’s pH and exfoliate it by breaking the bonds between dead skin cells.
Hyaluronic acid, in contrast, is used to hydrate the skin. It is a humectant, an ingredient that attracts and retains water molecules.
Hyaluronic acid has three qualities that make it suitable for skincare: it’s soluble (can be dissolved in water), biocompatible (meaning it’s not harmful to the body), and biodegradable (naturally breaks down into non-toxic, simpler substances).
It is usually safe and well-tolerated, meaning it has very few side effects.
In skincare products, hyaluronic is used in different forms. Smaller hyaluronic molecules can penetrate deeper into the skin and hydrate the lower levels. In products this is often advertised as “anti-ageing”, because it stimulates the production of collagen (a structural protein in the skin), and helps to improve elasticity and reduce the appearance of fine lines.
Larger hyaluronic acid molecules remain on the skin’s surface and have an immediate hydrating effect, preventing water evaporation from the skin.
Hyaluronic acid helps the skin attract and retain water molecules for hydration. Art_Photo/Shutterstock Any risks?
Hyaluronic acid is generally a safe ingredient, even for sensitive skin. But products advertised as “hyaluronic acid skincare” may contain other ingredients which can cause irritation.
In particular, fragrances, preservatives and surfactants (ingredients that produce foam and help wash away oil and dirt) may be safe for skin but burn or otherwise irritate the eyes.
This is because the cornea and conjuctiva (the thin membrane covering the eye) are much more sensitive than the skin.
How are skincare ingredients regulated?
Unlike medicines and products used for therapeutic reasons, which are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), general cosmetic products do not require pre-market safety testing or approval.
Instead, companies need to register their business with the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme and verify that their ingredients are not banned or restricted in Australia.
This creates a potential gap where defective products remain on the market, only to be recalled after adverse reactions occur.
Are these products appropriate for children?
Most scientific research on active ingredients – including hyaluronic acid – has been evaluated in older populations. This leaves a gap in understanding how they affect teen and preteen skin.
Many products are designed for ageing and/or specific skin types, and are largely unnecessary for children and younger people.
In some cases, they can potentially be harmful to their skin. For example, unless prescribed by a dermatologist, it’s advisable for young people to avoid retinoid products (containing retinol or retinal) as they can cause redness, peeling and drying.
Similarly, products with alpha hydroxy acids can cause irritation, itching, redness and may worsen acne in young skin.
So, what should younger people look for?
Preteens and teens should avoid products containing active ingredients such as retinol, vitamin C, alpha- and beta- hydroxy acids, and peptides, as well as those labelled with terms such as anti-ageing, wrinkle-reducing, brightening, or firming.
To keep skin clean and protected, teenagers can use a good cleanser, a simple moisturiser and a broad spectrum SPF 30 or 50 sunscreen.
It’s best to opt for gentle, fragrance-free cleansers and moisturisers suitable for all skin types. Consulting with a pharmacist can provide personalised recommendations based on individual skin needs.
Zoe Porter, Lecturer, Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Monash University and Laurence Orlando, Senior Lecturer, Product Formulation and Development, Analytical Methods, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
People are getting costly stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis. But we don’t know if they work
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
More than 500 million people around the world live with osteoarthritis. The knee is affected more often than any other joint, with symptoms (such as pain, stiffness and reduced movement) affecting work, sleep, sport and daily activities.
Knee osteoarthritis is often thought of as thinning of the protective layer of cartilage within the joint. But we now understand it affects all the structures of the joint, including the bones, muscles and nerve endings.
While there are things that can be done to manage the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, there is no cure, and many people experience persistent pain. As a result, an opportunity exists for as yet unproven treatments to enter the market, often before regulatory safeguards can be put in place.
Stem cell injections are one such treatment. A new review my colleagues and I published this week finds that evidence of their benefits and harms remains elusive.
Marinesea/Shutterstock Stem cell treatments
Stem cells are already established as treatments for some diseases – mostly disorders of the blood, bone marrow or immune system – which has led to suggestions they could be used for a much wider array of conditions.
Stem cells have been touted as promising treatments for osteoarthritis because they have special properties which allow them to replicate and develop into the mature healthy cells that make up our body’s organs and other tissues, including cartilage.
Stem cell treatments for osteoarthritis generally involve taking a sample of tissue from a site that is rich in stem cells (such as bone marrow or fat), treating it to increase the number of stem cells, then injecting it into the joint.
The hope is that if the right type of stem cells can be introduced into an osteoarthritic joint in the right way and at the right time, they may help to repair damaged structures in the joint, or have other effects such as reducing inflammation.
But no matter how convincing the theory, we need good evidence for effectiveness and safety before a new therapy is adopted into practice.
Stem cells have been touted as promising treatments for osteoarthritis. But what does the evidence say? crystal light/Shutterstock Stem cell injections have not been approved by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, some clinics in Australia and around the world still offer them.
Because of the regulatory restrictions, we don’t have reliable numbers on how many procedures are being done.
They’re not covered by Medicare, so the procedure can cost the consumer thousands of dollars.
And, as with any invasive procedure, both the harvest of stem cells and the joint injection procedure may carry the potential for harm, such as infection.
What we found
Our new review, published by the independent, international group the Cochrane Collaboration, looks at all 25 randomised trials of stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis that have been conducted worldwide to date. Collectively, these studies involved 1,341 participants.
We found stem cell injections may slightly improve pain and function compared with a placebo injection, but the size of the improvement may be too small for the patient to notice.
The evidence isn’t strong enough to determine whether there is any improvement in quality of life following a stem cell injection, whether cartilage regrows, or to estimate the risk of harm.
This means we can’t confidently say yet whether any improvement that might follow a stem cell injection is worth the risk (or the cost).
Osteoarthritis of the knee is the most common type of osteoarthritis. michaelheim/Shutterstock Hope or hype?
It’s not surprising we invest hope in finding a transformative treatment for such a common and disabling condition. Belief in the benefits of stem cells is widespread – more than three-quarters of Americans believe stem cells can relieve arthritis pain and more than half believe this treatment to be curative.
But what happens if a new treatment is introduced to practice before it has been clearly proven to be safe and effective?
The use of an unproven, invasive therapy is not just associated with the risks of the intervention itself. Even if the treatment were harmless, there is the risk of unnecessary cost, inconvenience, and a missed opportunity for the patient to use existing therapies that are known to be effective.
What’s more, if we need to play catch-up to try to establish an evidence base for a treatment that’s already in practice, we risk diverting scarce research resources towards a therapy that may not prove to be effective, simply because the genie is out of the bottle.
There are some ways to manage the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Working towards a clearer answer
Several more large clinical trials are currently underway, and should increase our understanding of whether stem cell injections are safe and effective for knee osteoarthritis.
Our review incorporates “living evidence”. This means we will continue to add the results of new trials as soon as they’re published, so the review is always up to date, and offers a comprehensive and trustworthy summary to help people with osteoarthritis and their health-care providers to make informed decisions.
In the meantime, there are a number of evidence-based treatment options. Non-drug treatments such as physiotherapy, regular exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and cognitive behavioural therapy can be more effective than you think. Anti-inflammatory and pain medications can also play a supporting role.
Importantly, it’s not inevitable that osteoarthritic joints get worse with time. So, even though joint replacement surgery is often highly effective, it’s the last resort and fortunately, many people never need to take this step.
Samuel Whittle, ANZMUSC Practitioner Fellow, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
