We’re really not reviewing a story here. We’re reviewing a byproduct of a news release. In fact, the hospital news release upon which this is based was actually better.
Journalism should lose credibility for simply shoveling on unvetted hospital news release claims.
Described as "relatively low-cost in the long run" in the words of a researcher. But what does that mean? No dollar figures given.
No explanation of how "pain relief" was measured. No discussion of results in sham device comparison group. No discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from a small (34 people) short-term (six weeks) trial.
The story says "the approach has no side effects." No discussion of whether that statement is based solely on this trial in just 34 people – and, if so, how limited are the conclusions that can be drawn from a study of just 34 people.
Inadequate. No explanation of how the active devices were tested against sham devices. Therefore, no discussion of whether there was any placebo effect in sham device users. Also no explanation of how "pain relief" was measured or self-reported. No discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from an as-yet non-peer-reviewed study in just 34 people.
Not applicable because there was really no meaningful discussion of knee arthritis.
No independent sources – just quotes from a hospital news release.
No comparison with any of the many approaches to treating arthritic knee pain. Even the hospital news release reminded us that "Current treatments include drug therapies like anti-inflammatory medication or pain relievers; physical therapy; support devices; health and behavioral modifications such as weight loss; surgery and joint replacement." But the story didn’t.
There is no explanation of whether the device is experimental, on the market, and, if so, where or how widely available.
No discussion comparing this approach with the myriad other devices tested through the years for pian of knee arthritis.
The story admits that a hospital news release is its main source. The quotes come directly from the news release. There was apparently no independent reporting.