This story covers a newly FDA approved for the treatment of major depression disorder: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
This story fails to provide any scientific or clinical evidence about the device and the specific patients that it might help. No independent expert was interviewed to provide objective information regarding the potential benefit and risks of TMS. This story failed to indicate that TMS treatment is only available at one location in the U.S. It provides some bare bones factual information about how TMS works and an on-air demonstration by a scientist involved in researching the device (who was not identified as such).
The piece did not provide any detail at all regarding how well TMS works or how well it works compared with typical depression treatment (talk therapy and/or antidepressant medication). Overall the piece makes little contribution to a lay person’s understanding of who might benefit from this new treatment, how to get access to the treatment, and what benefits and harms they might expect.
This story correctly indicates that a typical treatment cost between $6,000 to $10,000. This cost, for 40 minute treatments, several times per week for 4-6 weeks, was verified with the manufacturer.
This story relies on the anecdotal experience of one patient to describe the potential benefits of treatment. Potential benefits of TMS, as compared to a sham procedure, include improvements in depressive symptoms and complete resolution of symptoms. However, it does not appear that these benefits were tested in a head-to-head comparison with antidepressant medication.
No adverse effects of TMS treatment were provided. This information could have been presented in a concise manner. Side effects reported by the manufacturer include transient scalp pain and discomfort ranging from mild to severe that occurred mainly during the initial week of treatment. The story does not mention that TMS treatment is contraindicated for patients with implanted metallic devices or non-removable metallic objects in or around the head. The story also does not mention that TMS has been shown to benefit patients who have tried 1 or more antidepressant medication at effective doses and duration of treatment.
This story does not mention any of the relevant information from the research that led to FDA approval of TMS therapy. (See comments for Harms of Treatment, Benefits of Treatment, and Sources of Information.)
This story did not make it clear that this treatment is only FDA approved for patients who have not responded to antidepressant medication. Instead it lumped one personal anecdote in with 19 million other cases ("Nineteen million Americans suffer from depression every year. And like so many, Martha tried anti-depressants and therapy. But for her, none worked.") That’s disease-mongering. How many Americans do fail to respond to antidepressant medication? Answering that requires journalism.
This story does not provide any expert opinion from an independent source. It fails to mention that the doctor providing commentary and demonstrating the treatment procedure was a primary author for some of the research conducted on TMS.
This story is correct in indicating that TMS is a non-systemic, non-invasive alternative to antidepressant medications, other drugs, or ‘other measures’ to help patients suffering from depression, presuming that ‘other measures’ means cognitive-behavioral therapy.
No information was provider for the availability of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment. The manufacturer, Neuronetics, indicated that its Neurostar TMS will only be available at a limited number of treatment center around the country. After contacting the manufacturer, HNR learned that the treatment is only available at 1 site in the U.S. (See www.NeuroStarTMS.com)
This is a novel treatment that was recently been approved by the FDA.
We can’t be sure if the story relied on a news release for most of its information. We do know that only one patient of only one doctor at only one medical center was interviewed in the piece. No independent perspectives.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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