Electrical stimulation of the nerves for various therapeutic benefits is nothing new. There is a solid body of research showing that it can work for a range of disorders and there are many FDA-approved devices on the market. Here, though, NPR presented two sources — a patient and the doctor who invented a new device — as proof that a device with very limited evidence behind it can “reduce seizures (with) no surgery required.” We thought NPR’s listeners deserved more on:
Epilepsy is a serious and debilitating disorder for millions worldwide and leads to 125,000 deaths every year. Patients need good alternatives to current surgical and pharmaceutical therapies. Whether the type of electrical stimulation discussed in this story will prove to be one of those options could be decades away, and patients should not be given false hope based on an entertaining but incomplete story.
The story makes no mention of costs. There are similar devices in use, including one for epilepsy that is mentioned in the online story. Cost information should have been provided, at a minimum, for one of those devices.
There is one attempt to quantify the benefits in the story. It says, “A study of 50 people with drug-resistant epilepsy found that the trigeminal nerve stimulator was able to greatly reduce seizures for about 40 percent of them.” This does not give people enough information to make an informed choice about their treatment options. For example, what does “greatly reduce” mean? Did people go from 10 seizures a week to one seizure? Did people stop taking their medications and only use the device or just reduce the amount of medicaiton, as the woman in the story did? To back up the headline that says “New Device Reduces Seizures, No Surgery Required,” we expect the story to quantify the scope of benefits better than it did.
The story goes on at some length to talk about the side effects from drugs, yet allows the researcher/inventor to make the claim that there are no side effects from this device. With all the framing about the promise of the approach, we would hope for more discussion of what’s not known about safety profile after such limited experience to date. Even an additional line would suffice. We only hear the one positive patient’s experience.
The only hint that listeners to this story might have had that the evidence for this device was thin was a reference to “a small study.” The online story doesn’t do much better, saying, “A study of 50 people with drug-resistant epilepsy found that the trigeminal nerve stimulator was able to greatly reduce seizures for about 40 percent of them.” That would mean that about 20 people had fewer seizures as a result of this device. There is no context around this claim. There is no mention of the study’s limitations. There are no comments from experts in the field other than the device’s inventor.
One of our reviewers thought that the the story bordered on disease-mongering by presenting epilepsy, in essence, as a disease where people have been painted into a corner and desperately need a way out and that he best way out is this one device.
But, in the end, the doorway into the story’s discussion of epilepsy is appropriate – “About 3 million Americans have epilepsy, and for about one-third of them, drugs alone do not control their seizure.”
The story does not use any independent sources. It also does not make it clear whether Christopher DeGiorgio, a UCLA doctor who invented the device, will benefit from it financially. One can presume that he will, but the story should have made that clear.
The story does not adequately compare the device to alternatives and gives the impression that this is the best treatment choice. It says for example, “About 3 million Americans have epilepsy, and for about one-third of them, drugs alone do not control their seizures.” It does not say what the one-third referenced do to supplement the drugs. It tends to leave readers with the idea that for at least that subset of the patient population, this device is the only alternative.
The story that aired said at the very end, “The device isn’t approved by the FDA yet. That’s probably several years off.” The accompanying online version of the story said roughly the same thing. Readers should have been told that they are very unlikely to be able to have this device prescribed for them unless they can find their way into a clinical trial. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
We’ll give the story a satisfactory score because it at least explained the following:
“the trigeminal nerve stimulator is not the first time researchers have used electrical pulses to prevent seizures.In 2005, the FDA approved a device that stimulates another nerve that leads to the brain — the vagus nerve. But stimulating the vagus nerve requires surgery to implant a device near the collarbone.
The trigeminal nerve stimulator, in contrast, never penetrates the skin and is powered by an external device about the size of a large cell phone.”
The story does not appear to rely 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.
You might also like