The story describes harms of sleeping pills in elderly adults. These harms might include problems during the daytime, including problems with memory or grogginess leading to falls. The story does address some issues, such as alternate treatment options to sleeping pills, insomnia in the elderly (that this is usually not a serious problem), and harms of sleeping pills (although the story provides relative vs. absolute rates). However, the story doesn’t go far enough. Rather than focusing on the negative aspects of sleep aids in the elderly, the story misses an opportunity to truly educate and inform readers. The issue of sleep disorders is complicated and deserves some attention given the huge amount of advertising for newer sleep products. Given the amount of advertising about the positve attributes of Ambien and Lunesta, an article placing these drugs into perspective would have been desirable. Although the story was relativey short, much of the information was redundant and the space could have been better served by providing information on good sleep habits.
The story does not mention costs, of either over-the-counter sleeping aids or prescription sleeping pills. The drugs noted (Lunesta, Ambien) are some of the most expensive prescription drugs available to treat insomnia.
The story tells readers that sleeping pills can help you fall asleep and stay asleep, but it does not provide any quanitification of benefits. However, since the story focus is about potential harms of sleeping pills in the elderly, it’s not clear that the story should attempt to quantify benefits. Nonetheless, it feels a little one-sided to present only harms data without similar information about benefits in the same population. The value of drugs for insomnia should be compared to good sleep habits. The story could have provided a great service by noting the simple measures that can help promote good sleep. The reality is that no one is cured of their insomnia unless they change their sleep habits or have an underlying disorder (sleep apnea for example) taken care of.
The story provides harms of sleeping pills in the elderly, namely risk for falls and problems with memory during daytime hours. The story gives some information about the frequency with which these might occur based on one study (seniors are 5 times more likely to have memory problems and 3 times more likely to suffer a fall after using sleeping pills). The story also talks about the seriousness of falling, which could lead to a broken bone. However, the article fails to note the potential to abuse these drugs, the potential to become dependent on them, and the potential to have symptoms when the drugs are stopped after long-term use.
The story claims “several studies” and one recent study conducted at the University of Toronto show that sleeping pills can have major consequences, especially for older adults. However, what type of studies the claims are based on and the strength of those studies is not discussed. Any limitations of the evidence is not discussed.
The story states that insomnia in the elderly is not necessarily a problem, which is fair and accurate. It describes how as one ages, the number of sleep hours needed tends to decrease. The story also describes some red flags that might signal a more serious sleeping problem, such as shortness of breath or pain.
The story obtains information from an independent source who is seemingly not connected to the sleep study at the University of Toronto.
The study describes other treatment options to sleeping pills, namely staying up later, and getting out of bed if you awaken at night and don’t feel sleepy. However, the story does not provide the reader with a complete listing of good habits for good sleep hygeine. In many cases insomnia can be cured through the use of some common sense lifestyle changes. Attention to “sleep hygeine” is the primary approach recommended by sleep specialists. Drug therapy is a last resort, not a primary treatment approach.
The story states that sleeping pills like Ambien and Lunesta are increasingly popular, which implies the drugs are available and being used.
The story talks about sleeping pills in general, but also names two specific types of sleeping pills (Ambien and Lunesta). Because the story names two specific drugs, the story should also tell us whether these are new (and whether that might be one reason that sleeping pills are becoming more popular). What’s more, these two drugs drugs have not been shown to be better than older and far less expensive drugs like triazolam.
There is no obvious evidence that the story relies on any press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.