This story reports on a small, randomized trial evaluating acupuncture for the treatment of depression in pregnant women. This story has numerous flaws, the biggest of which was relying heavily on the press release.
By relying on a news release for quotes, this story missed some of the caveats and words of caution from researchers and independent experts that we saw in other stories.
There was no discussion regarding the cost of acupuncture, a particularly important omission since acupuncture is not covered by all insurance companies.
The story tells the us that acupuncture significantly improved symptoms compared to the other treatment groups, but then it states that there was no difference in remission rates. A discussion on what this mixed outcome means would have been useful.
While acupuncture is generally safe, the story should have mentioned that 21 women in the study reported transient pain at the site of needle insertion and 1 woman experienced bleeding.
The story did a nice job describing the study methods, pointing out that the patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group and that the people measuring their outcome were not aware which treatment the patients were receiving. These are all signs of a rigorous study design, but the story does not tell the reader why these methods are so important. The story also should have noted that a study with 150 participants is still relatively small.
This story indicates that 14% of pregnant women may suffer from depression; however, the writer might have also noted that 3-5% of pregnant women have actually been diagnosed.
No independent experts were interviewed for this story.
While the story discussed antidepressants, there was no mention of how acupuncture compares to psychotherapy, another non-drug alternative that does not put the fetus at any direct risk.
The acupuncture treatment appears to have been customized for depression. Depression-specific acupuncture is not likely to be available everywhere. The story didn’t tell us.
While prior research has studied the effects of acupuncture on depression, it’s still a novel treatment approach. Unfortunately, we can’t tell this from the story.
The information in this story was taken largely from a press release
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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