In this story, we learn about a new study showing that a common surgery for sleep disturbance in children, adenotonsillectomy, may be effective for children with ADHD. Any new information on the treatment of ADHD is big news. According to the NIH: “between 3 and 5 percent of children have ADHD, or approximately 2 million children in the United States. This means that in a classroom of 25 to 30 children, it is likely that at least one will have ADHD.”
The story is clear that adenotonsillectomy is a common surgery for sleep apnea in the U.S., but that it is now being conisered for treating ADHD as well. This story leads the reader to believe that adenotonsillectomy could be used for all children with ADHD, a very large population given recent trends in diagnosis and treatment. However, this story is really about a research study that looked at children with sleep disturbance who also have ADHD, a much narrower population. The story also does not accurately represent the strength of the available evidence that adenotonsillectomy is effective for ADHD. The opening line of the story refers to “strong evidence,” which is really an overstatement. Although it is true that this is a randomized clinical trial, there are several limiting factors that are not addressed in this story. Specifically, this was a small study and the psychiatrists who assessed the children were not blinded to surgical status, potentially biasing the results. Furthermore, the story does not mention that sleep disturbance at baseline and at one year follow-up did not correlate with behavioral outcomes. This suggests that either there are problems with how sleep disturbance or behavior was measured in this study or that there is some other mechanism other than sleep that is mediating the relationship between the treatment and behavioral outcomes. These issues are not discussed in the story.
The story does not mention any harms associated with the surgery. The harms, although rare, include infection and respiratory complications, and are more common in children with obstructive sleep apnea, the target population in this story.
The story does provide the reader with adequate quantification of the benefits of treatment. Specifically, the number of children with ADHD is provided in the control and surgery group at baseline and at one year follow-up.
We don’t know if the author relied on text from a press release. Only a single expert is quoted, the author of the research article in the journal Pediatrics, so the reader is not provided with balanced perspectives on the importance of these new findings for clinical practice. There is also no mention of other treatment options. For example, CPAP machines should have been mentioned as a non-surgical alternative. Finally, there is also no mention of costs.
There is no mention of costs.
The story does provide the reader with adequate quantification of the benefits of treatment. Specifically, the number of children with ADHD is provided in the control and surgery group at baseline and at one year follow-up.
The story does not mention any harms associated with the surgery. The harms, although rare, include infection and respiratory complications, and are more common in children with obstructive sleep apnea, the target population in this story.
The story does not accurately represent the strength of the available evidence that adenotonsillectomy is effective for ADHD. The opening line of the story refers to “strong evidence,” which is really an overstatement. Although it is true that this is a randomized clinical trial, there are several limiting factors that are not adressed in this story. Specifically, this was a small study and the psychiatrists who assessed the children were not blinded to surgical status, potentially biasing the results. Furthermore, this story does not mention that sleep disturbance at baseline and at one year follow-up did not correlate with behavioral outcomes. This suggests that either there are problems with how sleep disturbance or behavior was measured in this study or that there is some other mechanism other than sleep that is mediating the relationship between the treatment and behavioral outcomes. These issues are not discussed in the story.
This story leads the reader to believe that adenotonsillectomy could be used for all children with ADHD, a very large population given recent trends in diagnosis and treatment. However, this story is really about a research study that looked at children who were scheduled for adenotonsillectomy and found a high proportion of them had sleep disturbance and ADHD, a much narrower population, and the cause and effect is not clear.
In the story, only a single expert is quoted, the author of the research article in the journal Pediatrics.
In the story, there is no mention of other treatment options for ADHD or for sleep apnea. For example, CPAP machines should have been mentioned as a non-surgical alternative to adenotonsillectomy for sleep apnea.
The story is clear that adenotonsillectomy is a common surgery in the U.S.
The story makes it clear adenotonsillectomy is not a new treatment for sleep apnea, but that it is a new application when used to treat ADHD.
We can’t judge if the story relied on text from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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