This article about the benefits of nasal irrigation helps introduce readers to an often overlooked treatment for sinus congestion. It generally is successful at doing so. As the sources suggest, for many people this is an excellent first treatment for sinus congestion and headaches.
However, the article falls short of several health reporting best practices which make it less credible, complete, balanced and useful.
None of these shortcomings creates a public health hazard or undercuts the fundamental value of the story. But they demonstrate the importance of using reporting best practices even when an article is not controversial and the treatment featured potentially effective and benign.
It would have been simple and useful to cite the costs of the device, the spray equivalent, and the solution.
The story does not provide sufficient data about the outcomes, instead summarizing with the words "effective," "safe," and "inexpensive."
The key study of 28 people showed a 30 to 40 percent improvement in systems.
The story does not mention the side effect of nasal irritation, post-treatment dripping and saline occasionally getting trapped in the inner ear. While these are rarely serious, they should have been noted.
The article cites three studies published in medical journals.
But detail on the key study, appearing in the Annals of Family Medicine report, is insufficient. That study addresses the efficacy of irrigation most directly, but it is summarized without data.
The study was only partially blinded, was based on questionnaires adminstered weeks after irrigation had been undertaken, and involved a treatment group of only 28 people.
While the story emphasizes how unpleasant chronic nasal congestion is, it does not exaggerate its seriousness.
The main source cited is Diane Heatley, whose objectivity is compromised by her ownership of a company that sells a nasal irrigation system. Other sources round out the piece, but over-reliance on Heatley harms the objectivity.
Authors of the published article in Annals of Family Practice would have been better sources.
Two independent medical sources discuss mainly antibiotic overuse.
The story also leads and ends with anecdotes from satisfied patients.
One of them claims to have gotten relief from migraine headaches. Irrigation does not treat migraines, but migraines are often thought to be sinus headaches. In all likelihood the patient got relief via irrigation from her sinus headaches, which she thought were migraines. This story could easily confuse readers who believe irrigation can relieve migraine headaches.
The article makes clear that saline sprays, antibiotics and over-the-counter nasal sprays are also used to treat sinus congestion. Exploring how use of irrigation can reduce incidence of antibiotic overuse is particularly valuable.
Mentioning the efficacy and side effects of each alternative treatment would have added value, however.
The story didn’t explicity discuss availability, but neti pots and nasal irrigation devices are easily available at drug stores, "alternative treatment" retailers and on the Internet.
The story reports that the tradition of use is very old, that adoption in the U.S. is low but beginning to gain popularity.
There is no evidence the article was based on a press release.
An October 2006 press release announced the release of a new product in the SinuCleanse line, sold by primary source Diane Heatley.
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.