This is a feel-good health story about a simple, probably harmless therapy that appears to help people manage a debilitating disease with grace. The segment features a researcher and his colleague, as well as a research subject with Parkinson’s disease. The therapy in question requires a bicycle built for two and a willing training partner to nudge their pedal rate a little faster than normal. Before-and-after film shows how this “forced” exercise can dramatically reduce hand tremors. There is no hyping of disease or reeling off of scary statistics. Other treatment options get a brief (though incomplete) mention. Still, despite its charms, it could be better. It doesn’t mention costs, and is short on details when it comes to the quality of the evidence. It entirely overlooks potential harms of the therapy (see “Harms of Treatment”), and fails to adequately quantify the benefit. Sources are skimpy, too.
No mention of cost.
The news report mentions only relative improvement in motor function among people who did forced cycling (35% better than the control group), but cites no data on absolute improvement (35% better than what?). It also fails to say how long this benefit lasts. A press release says people doing forced cycling had 20% better motor improvement after 2 weeks—a substantial drop whose clinical and statistical significance is unknown. The news segment does not quantify any other outcomes of potential interest, such as the impact of exercise on medication dosing or effectiveness.
There is no mention of harms. Parkinson’s patients often have problems with respiratory muscle function as well as with balance and falling. Researchers have studied their response to voluntary cycle ergometry for 15 years or more, and found that many patients are able to cycle safely on a stationary bike in a lab. Could riding a tandem bike on a road cause falls or overtax their breathing? Other research has shown that exercise can alter a patient’s absorption of the medication levodopa, the primary treatment for the condition. Is this something people should know about?
Although the news piece describes a controlled clinical trial at an institution well-known for scientific research, it fails to provide enough information for us to judge its merit ("small" is the only detail). Another sentence could have explained whether subjects in the two groups were similar, how they were assessed, and if their assessment was blinded. Also, showing that "the same brain regions are activated" in "a brain scan of a patient after forced exercise" and a patient "on medication" does not qualify as rigorous support for the role of "forced exercise" in relieving the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
One of the appeals of this news segment is that it tells us about a safe, potentially effective treatment without employing scare tactics.
The only expert testimonial in the story comes from the researcher who is the subject of the news report and his colleague. The only patient testimonial comes from a subject enrolled in the researcher’s study. Together the three tell a heart-warming, but potentially one-sided, tale. The story lacks a truly independent voice.
The news segment loosely compares forced cycling to medication, though it does not name the standard treatment for Parkinson’s disease, the medicine levodopa, and does not remind viewers that the research being reported did not study medicine. Anchor Chris Cuomo says “some benefit” of forced cycling lasted for 4 weeks, compared to just a few hours for medication. A news release suggests the benefit of forced cycling may decrease substantially over time, however. (See “Quantification of benefits” above). The news story does not mention deep brain stimulation, which can also be effective.
The availability of tandem bikes is not in question. N/A in this story.
The news report suggests that forced exercise on a bicycle is a novel treatment, a contention supported by our own quick search of the literature. Interestingly, the report leaves the viewer with the impression that researcher Jay Alberts’ tandem bike ride with a patient was quite recent. According to a press release, he first noticed improvement in a woman with Parkinson’s during a ride in 2001, then followed that with a second patient in 2006. This may help to explain why Alberts had film of a patient’s shaky hand before they embarked on their expedition: maybe he had an inkling it might come in handy.
There is no obvious use of text from 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