This short release reports on a small study looking at whether electro-acupuncture is effective in diminishing night-time hot flashes among breast cancer survivors, and therefore, improving the quality of their sleep. While it states that this therapeutic approach is as good as, or perhaps better, than a drug (gabapentin) often prescribed for hot flashes, the release offers no data showing the extent of improvement, nor are there mentions of the cost of such treatments, or of potential harms from using it which, while not enormous, are not negligible either. The release also neglects to identify any of the researchers involved in the trial.
More and more people are surviving breast cancer and there is increasing interest among survivors and clinicians about quality of life for survivors. As the release states, perhaps 6 million patients may have survived by the year 2020, meaning even serious discomforts like hot flashes among such patients will become a growing problem. The release hints that this approach may be effective for such people, but it fails to provide aspects critical to really evaluating this “news.”
There was no mention in the release as to the cost of electro-acupuncture, although a quick search on the web revealed that the costs per session could range anywhere from $60 to $150. Nor did the release give any information about the number of sessions required to acheive improved sleep — a single one or multiple. Lastly, the release gives no indication whether Medicare or health insurance plan will cover electro-acupuncture, a factor that can affect whether many patients would choose this treatment.
The release stated that the use of electro-acupuncture was “comparable to, if not better than” the drug (gabapentin) that was used in this comparative study in reducing “hot flash severity and frequency and improving overall sleep quality.” This kind of vague statement doesn’t help readers looking for some quantification, or degree of change, provided by this alternative therapy.
The release also states that “although electro-acupuncture produced significant sleep improvements, researchers noted that sleep quality for the participants was still not as good as it should be.” But again, there is no scale of benchmark provided which would help a reader gauge the effectiveness, and therefore the worth, of trying electro-acupuncture.
The release makes no mention of potential harms or side effects from the use of electro-acupuncture, which like traditional acupuncture, is considered to be of relatively low risk. But neither is without risk entirely, given that infection is possible along with bleeding or other injury. Electro-acupuncture is not suggested for people with heart problems, strokes, seizures or epilepsy, nor should it be used by patients with cardiac pacemakers since the small current used can disrupt the function of these devices. These risks should have been included in the release.
The release provides no details about how the study was conducted or about the participants in the study, especially regarding their overall health, the length and type of treatment they had for their breast cancer, or the length of time since their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the release include any specifics about how the participants’ sleep and specific aspects of their sleep were measured.
The release does say that the research involved a “randomized, controlled trial,” which offers some detail, as does the fact that “58 breast cancer survivors” who experienced bothersome hot flashes participated. But 58 is considered a small study size. The release correctly points out that “blinded controlled trials are needed.”
This release steps over the line in suggesting that hot flashes — a normal part of menopause for some women and especially for breast cancer survivors — is like a disease unto itself that always requires medical treatment. According to Johns Hopkins University, about 75 percent of all women going through menopause experience hot flashes, the most common symptom of menopause. Many are able to manage their symptoms through simple, inexpensive lifestyle changes.
The release notes that the research was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute but it makes no mention of potential conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers involved. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt here since we don’t have access to the full published study to verify who the funders are or assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest. We encourage news releases to always disclose whether or not there are conflicts.
The release points out that electro-acupuncture was compared with the drug gabapentin. But there are numerous other alternatives to both a fairly powerful drug with its own side effects and electro-acupuncture. There are many other ways to help one sleep while experiencing hot flashes such as non-hormonal medications and lifestyle changes — dressing in layers, lowering the thermostat, staying away from caffeine — to name a few.
The release doesn’t mention where or if electro-acupuncture is available to patients who desire such treatments.
The release claims in the subhead that the “Study confirms benefits versus gabapentin for helping breast cancer survivors suffering from hot flashes achieve better sleep” but given that no additional information is provided in the release, it is hard to find such a vague conclusion is novel enough to warrant issuing a news release. Moreover, it appears that acupuncture has been used extensively in previous studies for hot flashes in breast cancer patients, so some comment on that approach, and how “electro-acupunture” might differ, is warranted.
No unjustifiable language was used here.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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