This story was a very engaging, human interest story. But it did not do a good job of informing the public about tinnitus or brain stimulation as a potential future treatment.
The interview material helped demonstrate that at least for the individuals interviewed, tinnitus is debilitating. However the story did little to put into perspective for the reader how common it is to see this level of affliction. The story also failed to clarify for the reader whether the benefits of the experimental approach were long term or not, and the percentage of people who respond. It discussed "significant improvement" in a small number of experimental subjects, but didn’t explain what that meant. And it didn’t emphasize the limitations of such small sample sizes.
Costs weren’t discussed.
Possible side effects were minimized.
Although the approach is experimental for the treatment of tinnitus, it is a procedure used for other applications and so an estimate of the costs involved could have been provided. The story does not discuss the fact that it is unlikely that insurance would cover the costs for this experimental approach at this time.
There was little quantification of benefits from the experimental approach other than the patient reports of reductions in their symptoms. The story did not provide any context for the percentage of patients who experience symptom relief, the extent to which, on average, symptoms are relieved, or the average length of time symptoms are diminished. It discussed "significant improvement" in a small number of experimental subjects, but didn’t explain what that meant.
Although at least one patient report in the story made it clear that the benefits of the experimental approach might only be temporary, the story did not provide any other details about potential harms or side effects that might result. It did include several comments that seemed to dismmiss the potential for bad things to happen when inserting things into the skull.
Several people were quoted as saying that this was a promising approach. The studies that were mentioned all involved small numbers of patients and it was less than clear what percent of patients experienced relief and whether that relief was long lived or not. While the story included several examples of very vivid individual accounts of at least short term benefit, it failed to provide sufficient balance about the benefits of the experimental approach. The only randomized clinical trial of vagus nerve stimulation for depression was a negative study and it wasn’t cited in this article.
This story engaged in disease mongering because it presented only the most extreme examples for the extent to which people with tinnitus are affected.
While the story included an estimate for the number of affected individuals that came from a press release from the American Tinnitus Assocation, information from a peer reviewed publication estimated that though tinnitus was relatively common, affecting up to 17% of the population, only 14% reported that it bothered them a great deal (Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1990 476:202-208).
Several patients and clinicians were quoted for this story. Some of the experts did mention that the mechanism by which this experimental approach has its effect was not understood.
There was inadequate discussion of the treatment options for tinnitus. The story mentions a variety of treatments tried by a patient – including chemotherapy – but there is no careful discussion of the various existing treatment options.
The story was clear that the experimental approach is not widely available.
The story was clear that deep brain stimulation, though not a new treatment, was relatively new as an experimental approach for tinnitus.
Does not rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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