A paid advertisement could not have been more promotional and less informative than this one-sided celebration of a type of chiropractic manipulation.
The story features the case of one man who suffered terrible pain from a nerve disorder called trigeminal neuralgia. Readers are told that he credits the treatment with preventing him from committing suicide by immediately ending terrible pain attacks that conventional medicines failed to control. The story quotes practitioners and announces an upcoming event they are hosting, but there are no independent voices nor any reference to independent sources of information on either the disorder or its treatments.
By trumpeting a highly emotional and extreme case, by failing to provide any data or to challenge the vague claims of practitioners promoting their services, and by ignoring independent sources of information, this story is the antithesis of solid medical journalism.
There is no mention of how much the manipulations cost or how many sessions are routinely recommended.
The story highlights one patient without providing any information about how typical his experience might be. In addition, it offered only vague claims by practitioners that their treatments were beneficial, without defining the benefits or offering any success rates or other specifics.
The story fails to mention any potential risks.
Although the evidence of harms related to chiropractic manipulation is as spotty as the evidence of benefits, there are reports of strokes following manipulation of the upper cervical spine. The story reports that patients are given head and neck X-rays before and after treatments, without discussing the potential cancer risk and other harms of radiation.
No scientific evidence is mentioned in the story.
In contrast to the personal testimonies of one patient and the practitioners quoted in the story, the authors of a review of complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic facial pain (including trigeminal neuralgia) in the Journal of the American Dental Association wrote that despite extensive searches of the medical literature they “did not locate any randomized clinical trials that tested the effects of homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, massage, meditation, yoga or herbal remedies for chronic facial pain.”
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/133/9/1189
If the Iowa practitioners have data, the story didn’t include it.
The story portrays trigeminal neuralgia as debilitating and incurable. The anecodte given is an extreme example of the disorder – a worst case. Although attacks are often described as among the most painful events a person could experience, the condition can be managed successfully, and the attacks may disappear as mysteriously as they appeared.
No independent experts or sources of information are mentioned in the story. It appears to be based entirely on information provided by one patient and practitioners of one variety of chiropractic manipulation.
While the story mentions that the featured patient tried medication and having his teeth pulled and was offered surgery, the only purpose is to say alternative approaches failed or were unacceptable to this patient. The absence of any substantive consideration of the many conventional medicines and procedures available to people with trigeminal neuralgia is a fundamental flaw in this story.
The story succeeded in touting local practitioners of this form of chiropractic manipulation, but it gave no indication of how widespread is this practice.
The relative novelty of upper cervical chiropractic manipulation was not part of the story.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release. We do know that – in news release fashion – the story promoted an upcoming event hosted by some of the chiropractic practitioners.
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