Researchers in the UK presented a single case study of a 39-year-old runner who had surgery on her knee followed by physical therapy using a special treadmill. The release claimed the “anti-gravity” treadmill, which reduces the pressure of weight on the knee, helped this patient reduce fears about re-injury and increase their confidence in their ability to run again. The release did not provide any data to support that claim.
The release would have been stronger had it included a mention of the cost and availability of anti-gravity treadmills. They’re very expensive pieces of equipment but are becoming more widely available through rehabilitation clinics.
Knee pain is a very common condition and often keeps people from activities, including exercise, that are known to promote overall health. This news release about a single patient’s recovery from surgery overstates the benefit of the “anti-gravity” treadmill by implying that because this patient recovered better after using the machine, that others might, too. Studying a single patient, without comparison to a control group, cannot prove this treadmill improves outcomes. As we’ve said in a recent blog post, case studies should not be used as proof of health outcomes.
The release makes no mention of costs of the “space age” treadmill device. We found at least one anti-gravity treadmill has been around since 2005. The machines sell for between $24,500 and $70,000. Most people who would want to use them would be referred to a rehabilitation clinic where it may cost about $80 to run on one for 55 minutes.
The release does not offer any units of measurement to describe the benefits. The descriptions of benefits also lean pretty heavily on abstractions that are tricky to measure.
In the following example, the benefits are “a great environment for healing” and “belief” that a patient can make a successful return.
“Not only does the tailored anti-gravity treadmill programme provide a great environment for healing, it also helps the person restore their belief that they can make a successful return to the sport they love.”
In another example, the researcher is paraphrased as saying the machine could be helping to “reduce fears about re-injury and increase self-belief.” Basically they are saying that the runner re-gained some confidence in running. This cannot be extended to generalizations about health outcomes.
The release does not mention any potential harms.
As we outlined in benefits above, this release is written about a single case study of a single patient. The reader does not have enough information about the evidence to judge the quality. The release does not explain how the study measured the patient’s attitude or knee recovery. We’re only told that the therapy last 8 weeks.
We did look at the published study which explained the measurements. But they aren’t included in the release.
The release doesn’t say if the author received funding to complete the case study. It also doesn’t give readers any information about potential conflicts of interest, or the absence of any, between the study authors and anti-gravity treadmill manufacturers.
The release doesn’t mention any alternatives to the treadmill for people needing rehabilitation after knee surgery.
The release is about a study of a single patient who pursued a single rehab journey following surgery. Besides that limitation, the news release also missed an opportunity to mention that there are non-surgical approaches to treating cartilage damage in the knee.
The release does not tell us whether the device is available anywhere outside of the specific physical therapy facility profiled in the case study.
The release doesn’t tell us how this case study yields anything new beyond the previous research completed on anti-gravity treadmills used in rehabilitation.
We did not find unjustifiable language — just exaggeration.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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