This story reports on the results of a randomized, controlled trial comparing a specific type of acupuncture to "sham" acupuncture (acupuncture using different pressure points), and massage. The study found that the group of women who received customized acupuncture sessions experienced more improvements in depressive symptoms than those in the other treatment groups. However, the study was small (about 50 participants per group) and the results have not been replicated.
This story adequately describes the current study and its potential limitations. It establishes the novelty of the treatment, quantifies the benefits and compares acupuncture to existing treatments such as psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. It quotes an independent expert who provides valuable commentary on the importance of the new findings.
The story could have been improved by discussing the availability of acupuncture (in particular the specific regimen as used in this study), and any potential harms of acupuncture. Most importantly, the story should have discussed the costs of the 12-session regimen. Insurance coverage for acupuncture varies widely and the expense of this treatment could represent a significant barrier to women.
Depression during pregnancy may be difficult to recognize because many of the normal changes (such as change in appetite and sleep and lower energy levels) during pregnancy are similar to the symptoms of depression. However, untreated and undiagnosed depression could increase the risk of malnutrition, sleep disturbance, and non-compliance with pre-natal care. Fortunately there are many safe and effective treatments for depression, even during pregnancy. Both psychotherapy and antidepressant medication are highly effective. According to a new study to be published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, acupuncture may be another safe option.
The story makes no mention of costs or insurance coverage for acupuncture in the context of partum depression. Costs could be a significant barrier to getting the treatment for many women. The story points out that it is important that women are fully treated into remission, yet it makes no estimate of the cost of the full 12 sessions as described in the study.
The story only reported benefits in relative terms, but those percentages were juxtaposed to the actual numbers of women assigned to the three study groups – so it’s possible for readers to do the math. Nonetheless, why make them do the math? Why not just give the absolute numbers of how many in each group responded?
One thing we did like is that the story explained that the study defined a "positive response" from treatment as an improvement of more than 50% in depressive symptoms. It would be interesting to know if the women in the study would self report this amount of improvement as a significant improvement in how they were feeling.
The study reported some cases of pain at needle insertion sites and bleeding, but the story didn’t mention this. Even with a treatment that is generally very safe, women should be aware of any risks.
The story does a good job of describing the current study and pointing out its limitations, most importantly, that it was a small study and the first to evaluate this specific form of acupuncture.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of partum depression.
The story quotes one independent expert who provides valuable commentary on the importance of the new findings.
The story appropriately discusses antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, two very important and helpful treatments for partum depression.
The story stresses that the type of pressure points used were specifically designed for this study, yet the story makes no mention of whether or not this method is available to any practitioners and if so, where to find them.
The story is clear that while acupuncture itself is not a new idea, this particular pattern of pressure points developed for this study is indeed new.
It does not appear that the story relied on a new 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