Botox, or Botulinum Toxin Type A is typically regarded as a way to reduce fine lines and wrinkles. However, it is increasingly being used to treat disorders related to overactive muscles and twiching because of the temporary muscle paralysis that Botox causes. This story reports on a news release by Allergan, the manufacturer of Botox, about the results of a new study looking at Botox as a preventive measure for chronic migraine sufferers.
This story does a commendable job outlining the evidence to support Botox use for this indication. It rightly points out that there are serious questions about the methodology and that the details of the study have not been made available. Furthermore, it accurately describes the availability and novelty of Botox and is careful to quote multiple, independent experts who provide valuable perspective.
The story could have been improved by describing the costs of Botox injections, and mentioning possible harms or side effects and the alternative treatment options, of which there are many.
Overall, a very well balanced and informative piece that could have easily gotten off course.
The study does not mention the costs of the injections nor does it comment on whether insurance would be likely to cover it for migraines.
The story rightly points out that Botox did not signficantly reduce the number of headache episodes in the study but that it did reduce the number of days the patients said they suffered from headaches. Although the study does not quantify the difference, these data have not been released by the drug company. In all, the story did a good job of providing balance, by framing the results as being greeted with reactions ranging from "exhuberance to caution" which set a nice balanced tone from the start.
The study does not mention any potential harms of botox injection. While the procedure is safe, there are some risks that would be important to mention and consumers should also be told that they should seek out a practitioner who is skilled and experienced in providing the injections.
The story does a very good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, including the challenge of how to appropriately measure headache duration or severity. The story also rightly points out that the details of the current study have not yet been released.
The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of chronic migraines and is clear to repeatedly mention that chronic, severe migraines are the indication in question, not everyday garden-variety headaches.
The story quotes multiple experts who provide valuable persepctive.
The story does not mention alternative treatments for migraines, of which there are many.
The story clearly states that Botox is available and FDA-approved for several other indications.
Clearly Botox is not a new idea, but it is not approved to treat chronic migraines.
Because the study quotes multiple independent experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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