Stroke is a major cause of disability and death among adults in the U.S. It is estimated that 2/3 of people who suffer a stroke do not regain full physical function. When the upper body is affected, patients can have difficulty performing activities of daily living such as dressing, bathing and self-care. This story covers a novel rehabilitation device called the Tailwind. This simple mechanical device allows a patient to use exercise both arms independently, instead of just the affected arm. However, this story seems a bit like a marketing strategy for an entrepreneur who is selling the Tailwind. It features a patient who has had great success with rehabilitation. It does not provide any detailed information about the evidence supporting the physical benefits. The story fails to indicate the Tailwind was developed based on two small, short-term studies. These studies showed rehabilitation with a prototype of the Tailwind device can improve movement-related activation in some areas of the brain and arm function in some cases. These improvements are significant because they occurred in stroke survivors years after further recovery was anticipated. Thus, this type of rehabilitation device has potential to improve upper body function for chronic stroke patients. But, the story also fails to mention that about 1/3 of patients using the device had no improvement. Overall this story highlights an interesting and potentially important advance in stroke rehabilitation. What it lacks is balance in providing evidence to support the commercial sale of the Tailwind.
This story states that the Tailwind device costs $2,400. (The actual price is $2,495 + shipping.) The stroke patient featured in the story was given this device for free. At the time the article went to press, no Tailwind devices have been sold.
This article provides some information on benefits including increased activation of some areas of the brain when the affected arm moves and improvement in function that allows patients to have better use of the affected arm. However, without citing specific scientific evidence, the reader cannot determine whether these results are typical or whether this patient featured is the exception. We are given a case study of a single patient who goes from a "useless limb" to "…play catch with his grandson and hit a golf ball nearly 100 feet." We have no idea if this is a representative effect or an outlier. There are no quantitative data given about benefits.
No harms were noted in the story. While the potential for adverse effects seems limited, 2 studies involving a total of 35 patients is inadequate to address this issue. In addition, in the small studies, patients were carefully monitored.
This story presents very little scientific evidence other than referencing to studies published in Stroke (2000) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (2004). These studies were conducted in chronic stroke patients with severe weakness and partial paralysis in their upper body. What the article should have mentioned is that the initial pilot study had 14 patients and was not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). This pilot study showed improvement in movement of the affected arm and patient satisfaction. The follow-up study was a small RCT conducted in a total of 21 patients about 3 years after they had a stroke. Patients using the prototype Tailwind device showed increased activity in some areas of the brain. About 2/3 of these patients had functional improvements while 1/3 had no improvement.
The story notes the incidence of stroke and that strokes are a leading cause of adult disabilities. The story could have been improved by telling readers how many of the 750,000 with stroke have important functional disabilities at 3 or 6 months post-stroke.
A variety of people were interviewed for this story. Information was presented by researchers who developed and tested the device, a chronic stroke patient who has had positive results from rehabilitation, and an indepent medical expert. It wasn’t a very balanced group of interviewees, but at least some attempt was made to consult an independent expert.
Only high tech options seemed to get any mention – such as robot-assisted movement, electrical impulses to the brain and specialized treadmills.. But there was no mention of standard stroke rehab programs. There is no mention of "stroke units" used during the acute phase.
The story made it clear that "Formal marketing begins in the next few weeks, and none have sold yet." However, the hefty price tag and the fact that this device is not covered by Medicare will likely limit availability. (See Cost and Benefits comments.)
The Tailwind device does offer a new approach to stroke rehabilitation.
This article does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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