Potential harms are not mentioned, while potential benefits are inflated. This story falls far short of the CNN report we also reviewed.
Good reading skills are fundamental to educational, social and financial success. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability characterized by difficulties in word recognition, spelling and decoding. Most studies suggest early intervention is important, but little is known about why some children respond better than others. This research suggests that brain scans can provide insight to underlying mechanisms of dyslexia and perhaps help track and refine interventions that could be tailored to individuals.
Sophisticated imaging of the brain and its function is an expensive diagnostic tool. Applying these sophisticated tests to all children would be a huge expense. While other stories at least mentioned cost (for example the CNN report quoted the author of the study as saying, “…as the usage of fMRI becomes more useful and commonplace, the high cost per scan would go down”) this story fails to do so.
The study was a small one and deserves many cautions in its interpretation. The authors of the study for example, noted, “…these findings suggest that brain imaging may play a valuable role in neuroprognosis….” Compare that caution conclusion with, “Scientists using brain scanning technologies say they have been able to predict with 90% accuracy which children with dyslexia will be able to improve reading skills over a period of a few years.” Although the study did not speak to any interventions, the story suggests otherwise in a subheading, “Study Suggests Interventions to Help Dyslexics Learn to Read.”
The story demonstrates an all too familiar bias with regard to screening tests; there are no down sides. A couple of words of caution (again the CNN story got it right) about the implications of testing and test results would have been useful. If, for example, the fMRI and DTMRI scans are as accurate as this study indicates, might treatment be withheld from children who do not have the brain scan results that promise likely improvement?
While the story does describe the study in some detail, including its relatively small size, there are many aspects that are not addressed. We are not provided with any information about interventions that may or may not have occurred in the intervening 2-1/2 years or anything about the children enrolled and possible important differences at baseline. Again, the CNN story does a much better job evaluating the evidence.
We would have liked to have seen a brief comment on the prevalence numbers quoted for dyslexia. While the numbers quoted are correct, the variation is dependent of the definition used and the testing methods.
The only comments from an expert who was not a member of the research team come from the director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The story fails to tell readers that this institute provided funding for the study and issued a news release praising the results, thus the source doesn’t seem to be as independent as readers deserve.
This story provided even less background than other stories about current methods for assessing dyslexia and responses to interventions.
Functional MRI and Diffusion Tensor MRI are research tools not routinely available in community hospitals and not routinely used in clinical practice. The story does not provide any information on their availability. It also doesn’t tell us anything about the two approaches and why/how they are different. It just name-drops fMIR and DTI as if readers are supposed to know what that means.
The story refers to the background of research that suggested certain brain regions might have a connection to the reading ability of people with dyslexia; and it makes clear what is new about the findings of this study.
At least three quotes come from a news release. Other quotes came from responses to e-mailed questions – which may not provide the same insight as a telephone or in-person interview. We appreciate the labeling of the comments as coming from e-mail exchanges and news releases. But we don’t think the best journalism was employed on this criterion. Why the reliance on a news release? And why not at least a phone interview with McCandliss?
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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