This story reports on a new trend in medical devices – home biofeedback. The story clearly states that the concept of biofeedback is not new – psychologists have been using it for a while in their offices. What is new is that these devices are now being marketed for home use.
The story mentions that these devices are available and from which manufacturers, however it does not mention alternative options. Deep breathing exercises are mentioned, but what other options are available? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach by comparison? Although the story mentions costs, it fails to provide cost estimates of the alternatives and no quantification of benefits is provided.
Most importantly, the story does not clearly explain what the target disease or condition is. The story mentions stress, but also depression, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, etc. Having such a wide range of conditions that these devices purport to cure should serve as a red flag that these claims are not credible. The story also does not adequately describe the strength or availability of the evidence to support the use of these devices.
The story does mention that no serious side effects have been reported and quotes two sources who have differing views on the utility of such devices.
Although the story mentions costs, the story does not meet this criteria because it fails to provide cost estimates of the alternative treatments.
No quantification of benefits is provided.
The story mentions that no serious side effects have been reported.
The story does not adequately describe the strength or availability of the evidence to support the use of these devices.
It is not clear from the story what the disease is. Stress is mentioned, but so is depression, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, etc.
Two sources are quoted who have differing views on the utility of such devices. They offer some reasonable expertise and guidance to potential users.
There is no mention of alternative treatment options. Deep breathing exercises are mentioned, but what other options are available? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach by comparison?
The story explains that these devices are available and from which manufacturers.
The story clearly states that this is not a new technique; psychologists have been using it for a while in their offices. What is new is that these devices are now being marketed for home use. The story is not clear on whether or not some of the tools such as the computer program are novel.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news 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.