WkS+paper+4

This page is for Karen, Kellie, Laura & Laurinda

Hi Kellie, Laura and Laurinda Just to get the ball rolling I've found an article about drinking hot tea and cancer.

[]

I've found the paper that goes with it [] From the link, click on Manual Download.

I thought that the article was interesting and would attract the attention of a large number of people (tea drinkers). I'm happy to go with a different article though, if anyone else has suggestions.

ML: Don't wait for Kellie - she is a withdrawal.

Karen - I'm going to start on this article seeing as there have been no objections.
 * The article reports on a link between drinking very hot tea, hotter than 70C, and an eight-fold increased risk of throat cancer compared to drinking tea at less than 65C. The study was conducted in northern Iran which has one of the highest incidences of throat cancer but with low rates of alcohol consumption and smoking. The mechanism of developing the cancer is thought to be due to thermal injury which is reported both in the news article and in the journal article.
 * I think that the title would draw attention because a large (?) proportion of people drink tea and there is so much unknown about cancer, it's such a horrible disease, that who knows what is the truth? Perhaps this is it?
 * The article has simplified language ie. using the words throat cancer for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
 * The article did not mention that the journal article states that previous studies in this region of Iran and indicated that low socioeconomic status, a low intake of fruit and vegetables, and opium consumption have been associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer.
 * I cannot find the data to support the eight-fold increased risk of throat cancer but there is a lot of data in the journal article and stats aren't my strong point. I need to search again.
 * There was a photo of a cup of tea with the article but no other illustrations. There were no illustrations in the journal article. Unsure what type of illustrations would be appropriate, if any.
 * I like that the writer of the article has included some links to other science articles which are also about tea or cancer.

Hi Karen Sorry again for not getting on here sooner! Have printed off articles and am about to sit down and read with a cup of tea (not too hot!). I think the article looks great. Thank you! Will read tonight and post some comments tomorrow. Laurinda

Hi Karen, Apologies for not writing sooner! Article looks good. The stats show an odds ratio of 8.16 with a 95% confidence interval of 3.93 to 16.91 - so its approximately 8 times but there is quite a large range associated with it. Agree with your other comments. Laura

Hi there Article great. Was just checking the stats too. Had to look at google to check out odds ratios (which since I have found out will share with you anyway!). Odds ratios compare the likelihood of an event occurring between two groups. So the stats in table 2 (as Laura has pointed out) do show an 8 fold increase.

Karen your points are great. Just looking at the info in the Unit Guide regarding what we could look at. Oh dear. Can hear a baby. Will have a bit more of a look tomorrow and maybe we can put together a bit of a plan? Laurinda
 * One point is about whether there is any bias to the media article. I thought the author pretty much stuck to what had been presented in the original paper and didn't seem to be pushing anything that wasn't there.
 * Is this relevant to everyday life? I would say yes to that one. I think that there are a lot of tea drinkers out there and a lot of people who would like to avoid cancer! (Next time my husband tells me that I take too long to drink my tea I'll wave this article at him.)
 * Re the articel not mentioning that previous studies had associated other factors (eg low intake of fruit and vegetables) with an increased risk of oesophagael cancer, I think the study says that they attempted to adjust for these potential counfounders, therefore their results should just be about the tea drinking? Bit hard to know how deep should go into things when writing what is essentially a pretty short article. But you are right, he doesn't mention that other studies have come up with some different results.

Laurinda, hope that your baby settled back to sleep ok. Thank you Laurinda and Laura for clearing up the 8 fold issue and for the explanation. I think that the information that we need to complete this is already on the page and we just need to pick out the important points. I've been trying to find out more about the author, Michael Kahn, and whether he is a dedicated science writer. I haven't had much luck finding anything concrete but his name does appear as the author for many science articles. I take your point Laurinda about the attempt to adjust for the other factors that were not reported but after reading the article I wasn't convinced that the results could be attributed to just tea. The research depended upon answering a questionaire and for example, with regards to opium use (Table 1), is everyone going to be honest and admit that they're a user of an addictive drug? If the other factors were reported, I think that the article would have less impact because it would introduce too many variables. Karen

Was just re-reading what I'd written and realised that I had wandered off track and was questioning the validity of the journal article and not just the way in which it had been reported. Sorry about that. Is it the job of the news article writer to question the validity of the journal article or just to accept that if the authors are satisfied that other factors had been accounted for, then there is no need to mention them in the news article? Karen

ML when I did this exercise as a split personality I found I did the same thing - questioned aspects of the peer reviewed article. Strictly speaking, its beyond reasonable scope for most journalists to do that i suspect, but I think its fine here, and indeed for a specialist science journalist who has to convince themselves that the primary source is worth translating into journalese. Don't focus on it though. Fun topic. I'm told that japanese green tea should be made at 60C - but they served it a lot hotter when I was in Japan.

Hi Karen and Laura. Yep Karen, i think that we have got the major points teased out. I think your first point would go well as an intro. I will try and put something together in the morning so that we can get editing! I have tried to find the author's background as well, but have only really found his articles. I would bet that he is a science writer. Perhaps we could say that he writes extensively (?) on science. As for our discussion regarding confounding variables, maybe we could say briefly that the article doesn't mention previous research that may contradict the findings. Maybe we could also mention briefly that we have concerns about the possibility that the original article results could possibly not be solely due to tea drinking and that the news article does not "dig" into this. (If it had been discussed, it probably would have a lot less impact). I will also dig out the marking criteria and make sure that we have covered everything we need to. 'till tomorrow, Laurinda

Okay. I have had a go at typing something up this morning. it is 552 words (study guide recommends about 250 words) so is quite long. Have a read and slash and burn as required! I'm off to Brisbane this afternoon, but will be able to get on the computer tomorrow. Hopefully we can have something we can submit! Laurinda

The article “Very hot tea may cause throat cancer” found on the ABC Science website 27/03/2009, reports on a link between drinking very hot tea, hotter than 70oC and an eight-fold increased risk of throat cancer compared to drinking tea at less than 65oC. It also notes that people waiting only two minutes before drinking tea compared to four or more minutes were five times more likely to develop the cancer. The author Michael Kahn has based his report on a study conducted in northern Iran, a country which has one of the highest incidences of throat cancer, but with low rates of alcohol consumption and smoking, other known causes of throat cancer. The mechanism of developing the cancer was not determined, but was thought to be due to thermal injury. This is reported in both the news and journal articles.

Michael Kahn’s article has a high level of relevance to its audience: many people drink tea and would most likely appreciate information on how to avoid cancer. As such, the title is simple yet very catchy.

The article is aimed at the general public and therefore simplifies the term oesophageal squamous cancer to throat cancer, a more easily understood term. The article also rounds the statistics, for example reports 8.16 as an eight fold increase. The simplification still preserves the accuracy of the research of the original study. The article is written in an easily understood way and is logically set out.

Overall, the article is accurate in its presentation of the outcomes of the report and does not seem to show any bias. The statistics used are consistent with the study, however the odds ratio of 8.16 with a 95% confidence interval of 3.93 to 16.91 has quite a large range associated with it. Not reporting this could possibly give a stronger impression of the link between drinking hot tea and cancer than the study would indicate. The article did not mention that the original study states that previous studies in this region of Iran had indicated that low socioeconomic status, a low intake of fruit and vegetables, and opium consumption have been associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer. Whilst the study attempts to eliminate such confounding variables it is not clear that it has been successful in doing so. This is not stated in the article and would probably have resulted in less impact. (Should we note here that maybe it is a small piece and that including all this information would probably be too lengthy and make the piece not so much aimed at the general public – not sure about this!)

The article contained only one illustration, that of a cup of tea. This illustration appears to be designed to be eye catching. Considering that it is highly likely that everyone would know where throat cancer would be located, it seems that other illustrations would not be needed. A good point of the article is that it also provides links to other science articles about tea or cancer.

In summary, the article is a concise and accurate representation of the outcomes of the original study, however does not investigate the limitations of that study.

Hi Laurinda, you're a champion, you've done a fantastic job. I really like the way that you have pulled the information together and the conclusions that you've drawn. I think that it just needs condensing a little to get it closer to 250 words. I've done some editing below but feel free to edit further. I took out the line about bias because I think that as we are saying that all of the relevant information was not used then it does show bias.

OMG I am going to cry, I just spent 20 minutes editing your summary and what I had written disappeared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank goodness the kids are outside otherwise they would have learnt some new swear words.

ML: They almost certainly know those words already. The wiki does seem to have a problem when people are editing simultaneously. If you ever get a message about someone else bing on board best to copy what you have written and return to page view, Then try again after a few min. And don't write much before you save.

Here I go again

The article, “Very hot tea may cause throat cancer” found on the ABC Science website 27/03/2009, reported a link between drinking very hot tea, hotter than 70oC and an eight-fold increased risk of throat cancer compared to drinking tea at less than 65oC. It also noted that people waiting only two minutes before drinking tea compared to four or more minutes, were five times more likely to develop the cancer. The author Michael Kahn based his report on a study conducted in northern Iran, a region known to have a high incidence of throat cancer. The mechanism of developing the cancer was not determined, but was thought to be due to thermal injury. This was reported in both the news and journal articles.

Aimed at the general public, the article had a simple yet catchy title, was written in an easily understood way and logically set out. It had a high level of relevance to its audience as many people drink tea and would most likely appreciate information on how to avoid cancer. The term oesophageal squamous cancer was simplified to throat cancer, a more easily understood term. Statistics were rounded, for example a 8.16 increase was reported as an eight fold increase. Only one illustration was included, that of a cup of tea which may have been designed to be eye catching. The article also provided links to other science articles about tea or cancer.

Overall, the article was accurate in presenting outcomes of the report that it included. The statistics used were consistent with the study, however the odds ratio of 8.16 with a 95% confidence interval of 3.93 to 16.91 has a large range associated with it. Not reporting this may have given a stronger impression of the link between drinking hot tea and cancer than the study would indicate. The article did not mention that the original study stated that previous studies in this region of Iran had indicated that low socioeconomic status, a low intake of fruit and vegetables, and opium consumption had been associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer. Whilst the study attempted to eliminate such confounding variables it was not clear that it had been successful in doing so.

In summary, the article was a concise and accurate representation of the outcomes of the original study, however did not investigate the limitations of that study.

Sensational! I think this sounds great and is sooooooo much more concise. Fantastic editing job. I take your point about bias, if you are not including all info then it would lead to a biased report. I am happy with the summary and don't feel the need to add/delete anything. I think it is right to submit to blackboard. Do we wait for Laura, bearing in mind that it is due tomorrow? Will check back later tonight and will submit if I don't hear anything. If you get on before me feel free to submit! cheers. Laurinda PS. I always try and blame my husband or kinder for any bad things my daughter comes out with.....hmm don't know where that could have come from.

Hi guys,

I've just edited it a little further. Hope this is ok

The article, “Very hot tea may cause throat cancer” found on the ABC Science website 27/03/2009, reported the results of a study which found a link between the temperature of tea when drunk and development of throat cancer.

The article’s author, Michael Kahn, based his report on a study conducted in northern Iran, a region known to have a high incidence of throat cancer. The study found drinking tea hotter than 70 celsius was associated with an eight-fold increase in the risk of developing the cancer compared to drinking tea with a temperature less than 65 celsius. It also noted that people waiting less than two minutes before drinking tea were five times more likely to develop the cancer compared to those who waited four or more minutes. The mechanism of developing the cancer was not determined, but thermal injury was thought to be a factor.

Aimed at the general public, the article had a simple eye catching title, was written using non-technical language and was logically set out. An illustration of a cup of tea was included with the article and also provided links to other science articles about tea or cancer. As many people are tea drinkers, the article had a wide potential audience who would be likely to appreciate information on how to avoid the cancer.

Although the study only investigated oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, one of several different types of cancer which may affect the throat, the article only referred to “throat cancer”. Statistics used were accurate but rounded, for example, an 8.16 increase was reported as an 8 fold increase. However, the article failed to report the large 95% confidence interval associated with the abovementioned odds ratio. The article did not mention an important limitation outlined in the study: that previous studies in this region of Iran had indicated that low socioeconomic status, a low intake of fruit and vegetables, and opium consumption were associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer. The study did; however, adjust its statistics in an attempt to account for these variables.

Overall, the article was concise and accurate representation of the outcomes of the original study; however, it did not report any of the limitations of the study on which it was based.

Hi Laurinda and Laura I have had another go at editing to try to come up with a compromise between all of the versions. Laura, you came up with some fantastic changes.

The article, “Very hot tea may cause throat cancer” found on the ABC Science website 27/03/2009, reported the results of a study which found a link between drinking very hot tea and the development of throat cancer.

The article’s author, Michael Kahn, based his report on a study conducted in northern Iran, a region known to have a high incidence of throat cancer. The study found drinking tea hotter than 70 degrees celsius was associated with an eight-fold increase in the risk of developing the cancer compared to drinking tea with a temperature less than 65 degrees celsius. It also noted that people waiting less than two minutes before drinking tea were five times more likely to develop the cancer compared to those who waited four or more minutes. The mechanism of developing the cancer was not determined, but thermal injury was thought to be a factor.

Aimed at the general public, the article had a simple eye catching title, was logically set out and written using non-technical language, for example simplifying oesophageal squamous cancer to throat cancer. As many people are tea drinkers, the article had a wide potential audience who would be likely to appreciate information on how to avoid the cancer. Only one illustration was included, that of a cup of tea which may have been designed to be eye catching. The article also provided links to other science articles about tea or cancer.

The news article was not completely accurate or inclusive of some aspects of the journal article. Statistics used were accurate but rounded, for example, an 8.16 increase was reported as an 8 fold increase. However, the article failed to report the large 95% confidence interval associated with the abovementioned odds ratio, possibly giving a stronger impression of the link between drinking hot tea and cancer than the study would indicate. The article did not mention an important limitation outlined in the study: that previous studies in this region of Iran had indicated that low socioeconomic status, a low intake of fruit and vegetables, and opium consumption were associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer. Whilst the study attempted to account for these variables (by adjusting the statistics), it was not clear that it had been successful in doing so.

Overall, the article was concise and with limited accuracy in the representation of the outcomes of the original study; however, it did not report any of the limitations of the study on which it was based.

I'll check back here later tonight (it's 9:30pm now) and in the morning at about 8am. If it hasn't already been submitted I'll do so then (of course, with any changes that either of you want to make). I'll be glad when it's finished as the process of deconstructing someone else's writing has been difficult without the opportunity for face to face discussion. Cheers Karen

Hi Karen and Laura

Thanks Karen. I had started reading and was not looking forward to the task of trying to put all versions together when I clicked "edit page" to find that you had already done it.

I think the only real difference concerns the comments regarding the adjustment of the statistics in the original article to account for possible confounding variables. It is really about whether you view the adjusting to be an adequate method or not. This is not a major point of our summary, so I don;t think we should get too bogged down on it. I have suggested that we add "(by adjusting the statistics)" to try and cover everyone's view. I have also added back the simplification of technical terms (throat cancer for esophageal squamous cancer) as I think this was done to give a broader "general public" type language rather than it leading to a problem with not mentioning that there are other forms of throat cancer. Again this is hard not being face-to-face as maybe this is an important thing in throat cancer research and I've missed something???? I've also put back in about maybe giving a stronger impression than was warranted by the original study. If we have picked up that the confidence interval needs to be mentioned then I think we need to say why it needs to be mentioned. If it doesn't give a stronger impression then maybe it isn't relevant? hope this helps. I'm happy if you want to change it back. Feel free! By the way I've just edited in the above document as there really weren't any huge changes.

Cheers Laurinda

Hi Laurinda and Laura I'm very happy with the latest version (great job Laurinda) and am happy for it to be submitted.

Hi Karen and Laura I say submit if there is nothing further from anyone. great working with you both. Laurinda Hi Laurinda and Laura I've submitted our paper but unfortunately couldn't put it in Blackboard in paragraphs with active links but could put it in as one big blob with active links. Both versions have been posted (with active and with non active links). It's been an interesting process and I've enjoyed working with you both. Karen

Thanks Karen Laurinda

Thanks Karen and Laurinda. Great working with you both. Laura