Findings vs. Headlines

Why the headline and the finding can differ

NIH points out that science is a long and winding road: when what we know changes, that often means science is working as it should. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle, and studies that seem to contradict each other are often looking at different aspects of the same problem, using different techniques or timeframes. News coverage, MedlinePlus notes, may not explain how a study fits into that bigger picture. NCCIH adds that while many news reports are reliable, some are missing important information and some are confusing, conflicting or misleading.

Five checks before you believe a headline

• People or animals? Results in animals may not apply to humans.
• How many, and who? Ask how many participants there were, who they were, and how long the study lasted.
• What type of study? A randomized controlled trial can show cause and effect; an observational study can show a link, not a cause. Headlines often blur the two.
• Is it finished science? NIH notes some studies are posted as preprints before peer review and have not been fully vetted; results that have not yet faced scientific scrutiny deserve care and context.
• Who paid, and who is reporting? Funders may profit from certain results, and whoever reports a result may have a bias.

“Linked to” is not “causes”

NIH News in Health describes how reports that a gene, toxin or behavior is “linked” to a health problem are often based on observational research. Those studies can find links but cannot prove the cause of a condition. The ideal way to prove a treatment works is a well-designed randomized controlled trial, in which people are randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. When a headline says one thing causes another, check which kind of study it was.

“Significant” has two meanings

A finding can be statistically significant — the difference between groups is unlikely to be chance — and still be clinically unimportant, because the effect is too small to matter for patients. NCCIH suggests asking both questions: is the result real, and is it big enough to make a difference? Also ask how the results compare with previous studies; a single study rarely provides a final, definitive answer.

Red flags MedlinePlus lists for health information

• Dramatic writing
• Promises of cures
• Claims that sound too good to be true, which can signal health fraud
• A website or post whose owner, purpose or funding you cannot identify
• Ads that look like neutral information

The same questions apply to social media: where did the information come from, why does it exist, and who funds it? If you are not sure a post is trustworthy, MedlinePlus advises not sharing it.