Shares many of the same fundamental flaws as its HealthDay competitor:
Women facing menopause deserve more details on a study than this – a story that is likely to draw eyeballs while delivering few of the details that women really need.
No discussion of cost. 10 weeks of acupuncture treatment – the course given in the study – ain’t chump change.
The story told us that a five-point scale was used to measure the severity of symptoms. That’s better than the HealthDay story did. But only slightly better because the story never went on to tell us how much the scores dropped on that scale. So the story didn’t give any sense of the scope of the benefit, using just vague, nonspecific language – “significantly lower scores.”
By saying “significantly lower” and never providing real numbers, the story leads readers to believe the evidence is definitive. Some readers may never even reach the bottom of the story. They will see the headline and the lead and assume that acupuncture may be right for them.
No discussion of potential harms – only of benefits.
The story started in the right direction by ending: “Because the study was small, the researchers say more investigation is needed but….” – and here comes the unchallenged claim – “…that their results seem promising, suggesting traditional Chinese acupuncture could be an alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to use hormone replacement therapy in the pursuit of relief of menopausal symptoms.”
Among other things, the researchers admit they didn’t monitor long term relief.
Maybe if the story had turned to an independent expert, the story would have scrutinized the limitations of the evidence more closely. But it didn’t.
No one was quoted. No independent expert evaluation.
No discussion of other research in this field, including lots on acupuncture.
No discussion of the availability of acupuncture. Picture a woman who’s just begun experiencing menopause and has never had any reason to think about acupuncture. She reads this story about Turkish research on Chinese acupuncture. Even if she’s interested, she is not given any clue about the availability of the approach in the U.S.
No mention of any of the other research that has looked at acupuncture for menopausal symptoms.
Just last year a significant review of 106 previous papers on acupuncture and menopausal symptoms found exactly no benefit from the treatment.
It does appear that the story relied solely on a news release. Some of the language is nearly identical.
For example:
“They suggest that the explanation for the reduced severity of hot flushes might be that acupuncture boosts the production of endorphins, which may stabilise the body’s temperature controls.
The authors caution that their study was small and that they did not monitor how long symptom relief lasted, but they suggest that traditional Chinese acupuncture could be an alternative for those women unable or unwilling to use hormone replacement therapy to ease troublesome menopausal symptoms”
Story:
“The researchers say reduced severity of hot flashes may have occurred because acupuncture boosts production of endorphins, which may stabilize the temperature control system of the body.
Because the study was small, the researchers say more investigation is needed but that their results seem promising, suggesting traditional Chinese acupuncture could be an alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to use hormone replacement therapy in the pursuit of relief of menopausal symptoms.”
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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