This is an engaging article that may help raise awareness of sleep apnea and the types of problems it may cause. The presentation of a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device as a non-surgical intervention that can be quite helpful is accurate, though a more balanced view would have included some discussion of the difficulties that many have in being able to use these devices to obtain the benefits mentioned in the story.
The costs associated with CPAP technology are not presented. No discussion of costs of sleep lab evaluation. No discussion of insurance coverage for these approaches.
Estimates of benefits are presented in general terms , e.g.,”I sleep better”, and “I no longer snore”. But an expectation for the size of the benefits obtained, how reproducible they are, and the time needed to realize them is not presented.
Early in the story, the CPAP machine is described as looking like Darth Vader on life support. This at least helps with a reasonable image of what the “simple” device looks like.
Although health and quality of life claims are made, there is no mention of the type of evidence to support the anecdotal stories presented.
Estimate presented for >12 million afflicted with sleep apnea though most are undiagnosed.
There are quotes from three different health care providers who work in the area of sleep medicine; there are also several quotes from people who have experienced benefit from the use of CPAP.
Article make clear that lifestyle changes, weight reduction, and surgery are other methods that are available and used to help manage this condition.
Article does not mention that CPAP devices are FDA approved for the treatment of sleep apnea. However, it is clear that it is a readily available treatment.
The story doesn’t claim that this is a new treatment. Neither does it explain that it’s been in use for a long time. The use of constant positive airway pressure (CPAP), a device used to treat obstructive sleep apnea is not new. Such devices, initially used with neonates, begun being used in this adult population in the 1980s.
There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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