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.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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