This is an inspired type of health journalism: A well-researched response to a reader question about a widely used treatment–in this case, acupressure for common nausea. All of it is presented in conversational voice and easy-to-digest blocks of text. The author includes several details that anticipate readers’ questions: the kinds of nausea that acupressure is unlikely to treat successfully; how to locate the P6 acupressure point; and why it may be necessary to supplement the bands with manual pressure.
The article would have been more credible and useful by citing a few details about the studies mentioned, particularly where they were published, how they were conducted, and the size of the benefits. Adding just a few details would not damage the story’s accessibility or light tone. A comment from an independent clinician would have helped too.
The reader would have been well-served with information on the benefits, risks and costs of other treatments for common nausea.
The article reports that the bands from either manufacturer named cost around $10. The alternative treatment–self-administered acupressure–is implicitly free.
The article fails to include key details from either study that would help people understand the likelihood and amount of relief the treatments provide.
The article mentions the possiblities of discomfort and lack of relief, which seem to be the two possible harms.
The article briefly cites two studies, one verifying the utility of the bands and one the effect of acupressure on chemotherapy patients.
The first study is much more focused on the consumer product that triggered the article, so it should have been described more fully so readers could judge its credibility–at least with where it was published and what kind of study it was. Including this would not have violated the (appropriate and useful) conversational tone of the piece.
The researcher of the chemotherapy study offers good commentary–particularly mentioning her own skepticism going into the study. But the article would have been stronger by briefly characterizing the "study after study" demonstrating effectiveness. If it’s a solid group of rigorous reports from peer-reviewed journals–or not–the article should have said so. A good recent meta-analysis is accessible on PubMed.
The article does a good job keeping nausea in perspective. When it mentions the use of acupressure in chemotherapy patients, it might have made clearer that nausea of that type is very different from typical cases.
The author interviews two researchers who conducted relevant studies. It did not explore potential conflicts of interest. The story would have benefitted from the comments of a disinterested clinician.
The author includes his own "n of 1" product test, which serves as a playful counterpoint at the end of the piece. The danger of this would be the reader making too much of his "finding." But the tone and presentation make that unlikely.
The reader would have been well served by information on the cost and benefit/risks of those anti-nausea medications found on the same aisle (their potential for causing drowsiness is mentioned briefly). Any Rx drugs for more persistent or serious cases would have been worth mentioning too.
Because one common cause of nausea is pregnancy, and anti-nausea medications are usually discouraged during pregnancy, it would have been helpful to include alternatives. A meta-analysis on studies of acupressure in pregnancy is available here.
The article not only makes clear that the bands are available at drug stores, it mentions on which shelf it’s likely to be found.
The report makes clear that the bands are widely used and that the acupressure treatment on which it is based has a long history.
As a response to a reader question, the article did not use a press release as a point of departure. It quotes one product’s promotional material directly, making clear it is a claim by the maker, not a statement of fact.
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.