HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Oxygen therapy breathes new life into autism treatment
September 02, 2008
Reporting on an alternative treatment for autism is always risky. But this story, which focuses on the use of hyperbaric oxygen treatments for autism, does a decent job navigating the minefield.
Our Review Summary
Reporting on an alternative treatment for autism is always risky--the condition is disabling, the science poor, the anecdotes powerful, the parents emotional and the providers self-interested. This story, which focsues on the use of hyperbaric oxygen treatments for autism, does a decent job navigating the minefield.
Three best practices the story follows include:
- Putting compelling anecdotes and the voices of supporters in a context of responsible skepticism
- Mentioning repeatedly that the treatment is not medically supported for autism
- Using a range of sources, including two highly credible skeptics, and disclosing (or implying) the self-interest of those who support the treatment
On balance, however, the story gives more space to supporters [10 paragraphs] than to skeptics [4] or neutral information [4]. This makes the story incline at least slightly in the positive direction.
The most serious flaws of the story include:
- A failure to put this treatment in the context of conventional approaches
- A failure to spell out the potential risks of the treatment, which are considerable. Given the fact that hyperbaric oxygen treatment is unproven and [therefore] elective, readers need to understand the risks.
Having said all this: The reader is likely to take away the impression that this treatment is on the fringe, growing in popularity, and medically unproven. Given all the things that can go wrong with an autism story, this is a positive outcome.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story mentions two centers in its circulation area where hyperbaric oxygen treatment is available. It implies it is available in centers and hospital scattered around the country.
The report includes the name of a trade group, allowing anybody who wants to find a center to do so.
The story cites costs at one center of $3,000 for 40 treatment sessions.
The report does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism.
While it includes anecdotes that imply efficacy of the oxygen treatment, it does so in a context of appropriately skeptical reportage.
There is no good evidence to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for autism.
The story makes this very clear in several places and mentions some of the ongoing research whose results are expected soon.
The article fails to make the risks of hyperbaric oxygen treatment clear.
Risks include: seizures; problems in the lungs, eyes and vascular system; and isolated pockets of pain. Rarely, the symptoms are very serious. The treatment is contraindicated for certain patients, such as diabetics. The equipment is a serious fire hazard.
The story should have cited all this.
It should also have warned readers that the risks of side effects and fires are likely to be higher when conducted outside of a hospital environment by non-physicians, which appears to be the way the centers in the article operate.
The article makes no claims of novelty. It makes it clear that autism is a "new market" for "an industry that has served mostly scuba divers, stroke victims, and people recovering from wounds."
It correctly describes the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for autism as a rare treatment growing in popularity among parents seeking alternative tratments.
As the article makes clear, there is no high-quality research into the treatment's efficacy.
It's clear that this story didn't rely solely or largely on a news release.
The article quotes the following sources:
- two operators of hyperbaric oxygen treatment facilities
- one partner in a clinic who believes the treatment helped her son
- one medical expert who is supportive
- two independent medical experts who are skeptical
While this sourcing favors supporters, the reporter discloses or implies the conflicts of interest the clinic operators have. The two skeptical medical sources are highly credible.
All things considered, the story minimally achieves a "satisfactory" rating on this criterion.
While autism is not curable, it is treatable.
Early behavioral interventions are showing some promise [though they too are unsupported by gold-standard evidence]. Other approaches, including medications and diet, can control some symptoms associated with the underlying condition. Chelation is another controversial, non-medically-proven treatment.
The story should have put oxygen therapy in the context of conventional and other treatments.
Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.