This story adequately describes the current study and provides the appropriate caveats to interpreting its results.
The story could have been improved in the following ways:
1. By providing more detail on the specially-designed type of acupuncture used in one arm of the study. Where could a woman seeking this treatment find it? How many practitioners are trained on this regimen?
2. By mentioning any harms of the treatment. While acupuncture is very safe, the study did report some pain and bleeding.
3. By seeking the perspective of an independent expert and not simply quoting the lead author of the study.
4. By describing the costs or insurance coverage for acupuncture. Because insurance coverage for acupuncture varies widely, out-of-pocket expenses for the 12-session regimen could be a substantial barrier to many women seeking treatment.
Interviewing only the lead author may provide an incomplete perspective of the significance of the findings.
The study makes no mention of costs or insurance coverage. Because insurance coverage for acupuncture varies widely, out-of-pocket expenses for the 12-session regimen could be a substantial barrier to many women getting the treatment.
We note a couple of flaws:
Acupuncture is very safe, however there are some potential undesirable side effects that were reported in the study and that should have been mentioned.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study and provides appropriate caveats, such as the small sample size, the fact that this is a single study that has not yet been replicated and the lack of comparison with proven treatments such as psychotherapy and antidepressant medications.
The story doesn’t exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of partum depression.
The story quotes only the lead author on the study. The story should have quoted additional, independent experts who could have provided much needed perspective on the importance of – or limitations of – these new findings.
The story mentions other established, safe and effective treatments for depression such as psychotherapy and antidepressant medications.
While acupuncture is widely available, the story doesn’t clearly point out that the regimen used in the study was specially developed for this study. Where could a woman seeking this treatment find it? How many practitioners are trained on this regimen?
The story explains that the study is "the largest to date examining the effectiveness of acupuncture to treat depression in pregnant women." However, the story could have mentioned that the regimen used in the study was a novel regimen specially-designed for the study.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
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.