This story on the possible benefits of exercise for people with Parkinson’s disease does not provide information in a context that allows the reader to evaluate the claims made. Though the anecdotal stories are positive, they are not in a context with a framework to allow to judge how generalizable these stories are. Where are the data? Where is the evidence? Examples of benefit are presented in very general terms (walked a little faster, fewer falls) without any frame of reference for the magnitude of improvement or whether the change was statically or clinically significant. A National Institutes of Health conference was briefly mentioned. What came out of it? This article lacks focus and makes suggestions without background or context.
No mention of the costs associated with the type of physical therapy discussed or whether such therapy is covered by insurance or Medicare.
Examples of benefit are presented in very general terms (walked a little faster, fewer falls) without any frame of reference for the magnitude of improvement or whether the change was statically or clinically significant.
One expert is quoted saying, “But in general, the kind of exercise we’re talking about is certainly not going to hurt.” But suggestions for incorporating techniques such as walking backwards would seemingly come with some risk, especially in an unsupervised location.
While mentioning a conference at the National Institutes of Health and other ‘evidence’ in the piece, the story does not provide sufficient detail that would allow assessment of the information. The strength of the evidence is called into question when quotes include comments like ‘still hope that we can slow down or stop’, finding ‘signals of improvement’ or even positing that ‘even more advanced patients might benefit’ without data in hand.
The natural history of Parkinson’s or its variability are not presented
Only one investigator is quoted. The story mentions an NIH meeting without any details that would allow a reader to learn more.
Ideas about exercise modalities (dance, treadmills) are presented, but information about medications or devices used in the treatment of Parkinson’s is lacking
Though presented as something new (“the notion is gaining such ground”) there is a literature about the use of exercise and physical movement in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease that dates back at least to the 1960’s.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely on a news 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