1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Wednesday, July 16, 2003

    Blame the Steak: Now fats are being blamed for breast cancer:

    Researchers found that those women who ate the most red meat and high-fat dairy were 33% more likely to develop breast cancer than the women who ate the lowest amounts of those foods.

    Of course, that's in relative risk, not absolute risk. The study is only available online to subscribers, but the abstract sheds no light on the issue. It, too, hides the results behind "relative risk" assesments. It does, however, provide a glimpse at how small and insignificant this finding is:

    Dietary fat intake and breast cancer risk were assessed among 90,655 premenopausal women aged 26 to 46 years in 1991. Fat intake was assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire at baseline in 1991 and again in 1995. Breast cancers were self-reported and confirmed by review of pathology reports. Multivariable relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: During 8 years of follow-up, 714 women developed incident invasive breast cancer.

    To begin with, the estimate of fat intake was based on a survey - a notoriously unreliable method of gathering information. (scroll up for link). Then, out of 90,655 women, only 714 developed breast cancer. That's 0.007%. And the final kicker, the difference between the highest fat eaters and the lowest fat eaters, even in relative risk, was only 33%, an amount that's not usually considered statistically significant. "So, what?" say the researchers. They're not going to let the publicity gold mine of a study combining the media's two favorite health topics - fat and cancer - go unplumbed:

    "What this study says is diet counts," said Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

    The 33% increased risk means that about one in every 20 cases of breast cancer is caused by animal-fat intake in young adult women, said Patrick Remington, a professor of public health at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. That could be up to 10,000 women this year, based on the cancer society's estimate of breast cancer diagnoses in U.S. women.

    Epidemiologists generally consider a relative risk factor of 33% to be small. But even a small risk could become an important public health concern, Remington said.


    The recipe for modern medical research success: Take a handful of research subjects. Sprinkle with a pinch of differences in outcome. Combine with unreliable data. For leavening, multiply by the U.S. population. Mix liberally with experts who haven't read the study. And there you have it...... media significance.

     

    posted by Sydney on 7/16/2003 06:27:00 AM 0 comments

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006