A basic study of the ability of stem cells to “regulate” inflammation in tendons seems promising enough to invite further research into the role stem cells might play in this important piece of body scaffolding. But examining stem cell activity in petri dishes and in rats does not get us within shouting distance of a treatment. The news release acknowledges the early stage of this work, but its headline heralds the study’s findings in ways that will encourage readers to anticipate help sooner rather than later.
Injured tendons heal at an extremely slow pace, sidelining many people for months at a time. If inflammation is a major reason for this, then a treatment that addresses that problem would be of interest to active Americans and those who treat them. However, it’s premature to draw conclusions about the potential of treating inflamed tendons with stem cells based on this very preliminary work.
Because of the rise in health news about stem cells we’ve written some tips for communicating stem cell research.
This is basic research, so no one is in a position to talk about specific costs. But when a release broaches therapy as a likely goal, as is the case, then it indeed needs to speak to cost. Such treatments run into the thousands of dollars, with iffy participation by insurance companies.
The release briefly notes two findings: that human stem cells in petri dishes, prodded by proteins that promote inflammation, expressed genes involved in regulating inflammation, and that inflamed rat tendons exposed to stem cells demonstrated improvement. But without further study details, we have little idea of what to make of these results.
Since the release’s main source does reference the possibility of these findings leading to future treatment methods, the release really should offer some information about the possible harms of stem cell applications, which include immune reactions and even cancer.
The release doesn’t tell us much about how the study was carried out.
We wish the release would have highlighted the limitations of the research — the main one being that it hasn’t been tested outside of the lab. How this treatment might apply to people remains unclear and the release should have made this clear.
No disease mongering here. Inflamed tendons make life miserable for many folks, who find that this type of injury is very slow to heal.
The quoted expert source in the release is identified clearly as a co-investigator of the study, but we can find no information in the release about funding sources or possible conflicts of interest.
Alternatives to the use of stem cells for treating inflamed tendons get no space in this text. Standard therapies including physical therapy and anti-inflammatory medicines are not mentioned.
The release doesn’t provide any indication when a therapy might be available — if ever. This very preliminary basic research has a long research path ahead.
The release makes a claim of novelty with this statement: “Many would have predicted that tendon healing is inflammation-linked,” said Thoru Pederson, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal, “but that the anti-inflammatory roles of TSCs could be so potent, and so amplifiable, is a striking finding.”
It also suggests the research is a building block for future research. A co-principle investigator is quoted saying the work is “an important foundation for the development of a new treatment.”
The release doesn’t engage in sensational language. However, the release headline and some of the quotes by researchers appear more optimistic than warranted based on the preliminary nature of the work.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like