Newspapers are always looking for the next great story for excitement and to garner readership. Dutifully, people quote the article as fact for a month or two, until the next ?big thing? comes out. Unfortunately, the news writers don?t dissect the scientific literature the way we do for you.
A case in point is a recent study from the January 2009 issue of the usually reputable Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. The February 16 issue of the Los Angeles Times cited the study from the National Runners? Health Study which ?proved? that people who run an average of 2-4 kilometers per day had a significant decrease in the risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration when compared with those who ran less.
Well, that?s certainly a ?feel good? story, isn?t it?
The problem with the study, and it?s not a minor quibble, is that it fails to follow the gold standard in scientific inquiry, which includes the following three factors:
- The study is randomized (i.e., half of the people were told to run more and half told to run less)
- The study is prospective (starts now and then evaluates later whether an effect is seen)
- The study is double-blind (neither the investigators or subjects know which group the subjects are in)