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.