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.