Our Review Summary
The news release describes an interesting new technology that uses computer technology to try to “rebalance” activity in regions in the brain of depressed patients towards normal patterns by having them repeatedly do a task involving identifying moods on faces. Industry connections were clearly established, which is good. But many details are missing: How many people were in the study? How severe was their depression before and after? What were the limitations? Any adverse events?
Why This Matters
We need more and better ways of treating depression, which is one of the chronic diseases that disables millions of U.S. adults. But this release does not go far enough to help readers assess this new therapy’s potential, nor how it might compare to existing techniques such as drugs and psychotherapy.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There is no mention of costs. The release would have been stronger if it allowed readers to see the economic context of this new therapy.
Not Satisfactory
The release provides only percentages, with no actual numbers for the patients who did and did not receive the therapy. We don’t know if it was 10 patients or 10,000 patients. We also don’t know how the symptoms were measured, nor how severe the depression was in the two groups at baseline and afterward. (We looked up a presentation of the study: It had just 26 people.)
Excerpt: “In the trial, the therapeutic reduced MDD symptoms by 42 percent in the experimental group after six weeks compared to 15.7 percent in the control group, which was given a similar task using simple shapes instead of emotions.”
Also: If the groups received therapy for six weeks, how often did they receive it each week? What was the control group receiving? Was it once for 45 minutes or twice a week for 30 minutes? All these details would help us understand this.
Not Satisfactory
We found just one comment. Excerpt: “The initial results demonstrate that the efficacy of this digital therapeutic is comparable to drug therapy, with a highly favorable safety profile.”
Each drug shows different efficacy, so we’re not sure how this was established. Also, it’s standard to track adverse events in trials. For this one, what adverse events did the researchers find? We’re not told.
Not Satisfactory
The news release doesn’t adequately establish the quality of the evidence. Specifically, that because the research has not been published in a journal, it is preliminary. It’s also worth pointing out that six weeks is a short timeframe to measure the effectiveness of a treatment for a chronic disorder.
Satisfactory
There is no disease mongering.
Satisfactory
We were glad to see the for-profit entity, Click Therapeutics, clearly labeled as a contributor to the research and employer of at least one of the investigators.
But we would have liked a clearer explanation of conflicts. Do any of the study authors participate in patents related to this work? How might researchers benefit financially? The study presentation does disclose they hold patent applications.
Excerpt:
“Mount Sinai Innovation Partners (MSIP), the commercialization-arm of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, has been a key partner in this development.”
Not Satisfactory
Many other therapies for major depression have been developed, and some of them use technological approaches. Besides these, there are also drugs, psychotherapy and exercise with known benefits. The release would have been stronger if it had listed some of what is already known to work, and explained how the new therapy fit into that context. Is it cheaper? More effective? Easier for rural patients to access?
Not Applicable
Because the release is about a new therapy, we assume it is not available outside of a clinical study yet.
Satisfactory
The release establishes the novelty about this technology. Although we think this could have waited until a large, randomized study had been completed–and peer-reviewed–before they publicized the work.
Satisfactory
Some of the language appeared to swerve into exaggeration but was not unjustifiable.
Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory
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