The reporter has dealt well with a tough story: early observations about the neurology and mechanics of walking which have produced insights but no imminent clinical applications. The story conveys findings on basic neurological science in clear, accessible language. It indicates potential impact on practice and patients without overpromising.
The reporter also shows some enterprise by reporting out the story in fuller feature form, rather than just conveying findings from the two recent published studies. The studies are used as a point of departure, not focus.
The report would have been improved with additonal context and balance:
Because the treatment is still early in its development and its ultimate use in rehab unclear, there is no need to report its cost.
Since the story describes experiments that have produced new insights into the neurology of walking, there is no comparative data on similar treatments available.
The story implicitly raises the question of whether long-term training on the treadmill could not only result in benefits, but in harm as well. It would have been useful to hear the researchers’ thoughts on this.
The article is about new insights into the neurology of walking. It provides sufficient description of the experiments that produced these insights. While the published articles in Brain and Nature Neuroscience have more specifics on test methods and populations, including them would not add significant value to the story. The article would benefit from more emphasis on the fact that this has not been evaluated adequately as a clinical treatment.
Stroke and neurological injuries are very serious conditions, and the reporter does nothing to exaggerate their severity. The story does not exaggerate the potential value of the findings.
The reporter interviews the key researcher, a scientist at the Baylor Institute of Rehabilitation doing similar work, and a mother whose brain-damaged child showed temporary improvement. But it would have been very useful to hear from a mainstream stroke or brain-injury rehab specialist about how these findings might (or not) be applied.
Background about current post stroke and brain injury treatment and rehab practices would have been useful. The reader has the impression that this research could lead to revolutionary treatments, but it’s not clear how they would differ from current practice.
The reporter makes very clear that the treadmill protocol is still experimental. But the story would benefit from an estimate of the earliest date clinical applications could become available. Readers with loved ones who have had a stroke or brain damage would benefit from that reality check.
The treatment is novel, and the reporter describes it as such.
The AP article bears little resemblance to the Kennedy-Krieger Institute press release on the research.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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