Omega-3 correlation goes from non-significant to significant…

Annals fatty acid-coronary disease article gets corrected but not retracted

Annals fatty acid-coronary disease article gets corrected but not retracted

The authors of last week’s systematic review and meta-analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine have issued a correction that changes the correlation of omega-3s to the relative risk for coronary outcomes from non-significant to significant.

As reported last week by NutraIngredients-USA, an international team of scientists report that the evidence is inconclusive to encourage high consumption of omega-3s or omega-6s, and for guidelines to encourage lower consumption of saturated fats

The conclusions flew in the face of nutritional guidelines, which generally encourage low consumption of saturated fats, and high consumption of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

While the mainstream media reported on the paper’s conclusions, the subsequent corrections have been largely ignored by that same media, according to the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED).

The paper has received criticism from leading nutritionists, and some of the authors themselves have expressed disappointment with some of the conclusions.

Professor Walter Willett from the Harvard School of Public Health told Science Insider: "They have done a huge amount of damage. I think a retraction with similar press promotion should be considered."

The authors have rejected calls for the paper to be retracted, but have issued a correction. 

Related News

Stephen T. Sinatra MD, FACN: 'It was never saturated fat that was killing us, it's been sugar all the time'

Saturated fat in the dock: ‘Our nutritional courts tried and convicted the wrong man’

Omega-3s & heart health: Fish and supplements may slash venous thromboembolism risk, says new study

Omega-3s & heart health: Fish and supplements may slash venous thromboembolism risk, says new study

Is current evidence sufficient to support recommendations for higher omega-3 intakes?

Is current evidence sufficient to support recommendations for higher omega-3 intakes?

"The results should not be misinterpreted as a lack of an effect(s), rather a failure to detect an effect" - Dr Harry Rice, GOED

AREDS2 data finds omega-3s ineffective for heart health, but subgroup analysis suggests big benefits for healthy individuals

The pyramid of evidence-based medicine. The evidence strength increases as you go up.

Something smells fishy: Why the media silence over the blood pressure benefits of omega-3s?

Related Products

See more related products