This segment on locomotor training for spinal cord injuries is a human interest story focused on one person’s experience with the treatment and failed to reference any research or provide quantitative data on its efficacy. There was also no acknowledgement that spinal cord injuries vary in severity and prognoses, leaving viewers with no insight as to who would most benefit from this treatment and to what degree. This story also failed to provide commentary from independent voices; cost information; a discussion of potential harms; or mention of existing alternatives and their outcomes.
Without providing any evidence from the literature and relying solely on anecdotal information, this segment falsely raises hope, only adding further frustration and insult to injury.
There was no mention of the cost of locomotor training or whether it is covered by insurance.
This segment only focused on one person’s experience and did not provide any data on treatment benefits or harms.
This segment did not mention any harms associated with locomotor training. Adverse events reported in the literature suggest that some patients may experience tendon or joint injuries, pain, or extreme fatigue.
To present this anecdotal story as a realistic option without providing any evidence regarding its efficacy is irresponsible, especially considering how elusive therapy can be for spinal cord injuries.
This story did not engage in disease mongering, but only because it did not adequately define the disease. It is not clear if a specific type of spinal cord injury or if all types would respond to this treatment. This segment over-hyped the treatment without telling us exactly whom it’s for.
The segment features interviews with Dr. Harkema, who developed locomotor training, as well as a representative from the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, both of whom are invested in a new center offering this treatment modality. An independent voice would have helped distinguish this from an infomercial.
This story did not provide any information on other treatment modalities for spinal cord injury rehabilitation.
This story suggests that this treatment modality is not widely available.
The segment adequately conveys that this is a relatively new therapy in spinal cord injury; however, a discussion on how this compares to other therapies to restore ambulation would have been useful.
There does not appear to be a news release associated with this story.
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