This was a generally well written and balanced story about a small exploratory study on a possible new therapy for insomnia.
The story effectively describes the methodology and patient population and includes expert commentary from independent sources. The story also appropriately cautions that larger studies with a more diverse patient population are warranted to verify the results and determine their generalizability.
While the story meets many of our criteria, it would have been greatly improved by providing the reader with quantitative data and some context to help determine if the results translated to any real, meaningful benefit in peoples’ lives. For example, information on the Insomnia Severity Index, which was used to measure efficacy of the Internet-based program, would have been helpful. A brief exploration of cost, and of any potential harms (or lack of), would also have substantially strengthened the piece.
The story mentions that the Internet-based program is a “low-cost” option for treating insomnia; however, nothing more specific regarding cost is provided. It is presumed that the site will be proprietary; if so, what are the expected usage fees?
The story states that compared to the control group, the treatment group woke up fewer times, spent fewer minutes awake, and had an improved score; however, the reader is not given any quantitative data or context to determine if these improvements are really meaningful in a person’s life.
The story does not mention any possible harms that may be associated with managing insomnia via an Internet-based program. For example, might people develop worsening insomnia because of reinforcement of bad habits? A comment regarding the lack of identifiable harms would have been sufficient.
The story accurately described the methodology and the participants; although this could have been further improved by providing more information about the control group, namely, that they did receive any type of treatment for insomnia.
Additionally, the story effectively conveyed that this was a small study with a fairly homogenous population.
This story does not directly address the prevalence of insomnia, but the overall tone does not suggest disease-mongering.
This story includes comments from two independent experts, as well as a study co-author. The writer also mentions that the study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
This story includes information on the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy and working with a therapist for treating insomnia and briefly mentions sleep medications.
The story states that this Internet-based program “could one day” be an option for treating insomnia, which suggests that it is not yet ready for prime time.
The story conveyed that this is a novel treatment modality for insomnia.
The story does not appear to rely on a press release and quotes multiple sources that appear to be from interviews.
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