So-so grade for this story.
Good points:
Weaker points:
Hormone therapy is commonly used for men with advanced-stage prostate cancer (spread to bone), along with radiation therapy in high-risk men, and for men with rising PSA levels after attempted curative therapy. However,this story does not provide any information about the characteristics of the men receiving hormone therapy, including the indications for hormone therapy, the severity and duration of their hot flashes, and whether they had received conventional therapy for hot flashes (additional hormone therapy).
The story could have easily provided some cost estimate for four weeks of twice-weekly acupuncture sessions. But it didn’t.
Probably the weak point of the story.
The story only says “Their reported levels of hot flashes dropped markedly.” What does that mean? From what to what? Measured how? And in how many of the men? With no indication of what their baseline symptom severity was, there’s no way to interpret the sketchy results reported in the story.
The story also throws in a tag line that the same study “also found that acupuncture relieved the heart palpitations and anxiety often associated with hormone therapy for prostate cancer.” But no data were given to back up these claims.
There was no discussion of potential harms. Maybe none were found. Some past acupuncture studies report discomfort at the needling sites. One line could have easily addressed what was seen in this study or in related work.
Adequate.
The story mentioned that this was a very small study – only 14 men. And it turned to an independent expert who opined that the placebo effect could have been at play or that the symptoms simply went away on their own.
It could have explained that this study design–apparently just a case series without a control group–provides results of very limited validity.
NO disease mongering of the problem of post-prostate cancer treatment hot flashes.
One independent expert was interviewed.
There wasn’t any comparison given between what acupuncture did in this tiny study and what else is now done or is being investigated for hot flashes in such men.
Other hormone therapies and antidepressants are currently used.
Not applicable. The availability of acupuncture isn’t in question.
No context was given for placing this research into the bigger picture of what else is doing for the hot flash problem, or if other related acupuncture research has been done.
A study (Harding C, et al) was published in the British Journal of Urology International in January 2009, reporting on a larger pilot study of 60 men with advanced prostate cancer who did show substantial symptomatic improvement. Those authors called for randomized trials to more definitively determine benefit.
Mixed bag.
The story admits it drew its lead researcher quotes from a news release.
But it turned to an independent expert for analysis. Because that independent expert injected some questions about the limitations of the research, we’ll award this a barely satisfactory grade.
But why wasn’t the lead author himself interviewed?
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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