This brief story does manage to distinguish itself in two ways, one positive and one negative. First, the story notes how the study was funded and where the researchers have potential conflicts of interest. On the other hand, the top of the story editorializes by describing the study as "well done" without giving any rationale for that judgment.
The NIH estimates that 5 million Americans over 18 have fibromyalgia. They deserve more details, more about the evidence, more about the benefits/harms, more about tai chi (and its availability and costs).
There is no discussion of costs.
The story does not quantify potential benefits.
The story does not discuss potential harms. It is difficult to imagine that twice-weekly tai chi, like any other form of moderate exercise, would be harmful, but, at a minimum, the story could have reported upon the study’s adverse events registry. The NEJM story on which the story was based clearly addresses this.
The study was small, but the story does not call this out as a problem or provide any detailed comparison of the results experienced by the two patient groups, only one of which participated in tai chi. In addition, the lead graph in the story praises the study as "well done," but doesn’t explain why.
This story avoids disease mongering. It does not cite any questionable statistics about the number of people afflicted with fibromyalgia, does not belabor the symptoms and even goes so far to raise the possibility that the condition is psychological rather than physical.
Unlike some other coverage of the research, this story does clearly describe potential conflicts of interest among the researchers. It references comments in the accompanying editorial. In addition, the article reports the source of funding.
The story does not mention any other forms of treatment.
Like other coverage of the research, this story did not discuss the availability of tai chi classes.
The article does not mention even in passing any other forms of treatment.
The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and it appears that all of the information in the article came from the journal. However, the story does note some cautionary comments from an accompanying editorial.
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