This story reports on the experience of one physician, the owner of a spine center, in performing spinal decompression therapy for herniated disc. The claims of very high recovery rates at reduced cost allowing patients to avoid invasive surgery are very appealing. However, this story is flawed in many ways.
The story only quotes one physician, the owner of a center that provides spinal decompression. This is a major flaw in the story. The story should have quoted other clinicians or researchers to provide some context for the claims being made. The story quantifies the benefits of treatment in relative terms only. Also, the story does not compare the effectiveness of spinal decompression to other alternatives. The story says that “research has shown 86 to 94% success rate with decompression.” Compared to what? Most people with back pain find that the pain resolves on its own or with minimal intervention. Furthermore, the story does not explain the strength of the available evidence, which is not very strong.
The story does not provide adequate information on the novelty of decompression, on potential harms of the treatment, or on the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment compared to the alternative options. Although the story does explain that this treatment is available and claims that the treatment is common on the West Coast but not in the Midwest, this is not sufficient information on availability.
By describing a patient who “came crawling into my practice,” the story crosses the line into disease mongering. This case represents an extreme example of herniated disc. Many patients are not as bothered by symptoms. The story also starts out by saying that this is a new treatment for herniated discs, but later claims that it can be used to treat a wide variety of back pain conditions. The story also does not explain that this treatment should not be used in people who have had back pain for less than a few months, for whom exercise and time would be the best course of treatment.
The story does mention the cost of the treatment, which is not covered by insurance. The story should have compared the cost to other available treatments.
The story does mention the cost of the treatment, which is not covered by insurance. The story should have compared the cost to other available treatments. Nonetheless we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and score it satisfactory.
The story quantifies the benefits of treatment in relative terms only. The story says, “Research has shown an 86 percent to 94 percent success rate.” Readers need to know: 86 to 94 percent of what? And how is “success” measured? Also, the story does not compare the effectiveness of spinal decompression with that of other alternatives.
The story does not mention any potential harms of this approach.
The story does not explain the strength of the available evidence, which is not very strong.
By describing a patient who “came crawling into my practice,” the story crosses the line into disease mongering. This case represents an extreme example of herniated disc. Many patients are not as bothered by symptoms. The story also starts out by saying that this is a new treatment for herniated discs, but later claims that it can be used to treat a wide variety of back pain conditions. The story also does not explain that this treatment should not be used in people who have had back pain for less than a few months, for whom exercise and time would be the best course of treatment.
The story only quotes one physician, the owner of a center that provides spinal decompression. This is a major flaw in the story. The story should have quoted other clinicians or researchers to provide some context for the claims being made.
Although the story mentions surgery and painkillers, this is not sufficient information on alternative options.
Although the story does explain that this treatment is available and claims that the treatment is common on the West Coast but not in the Midwest, this is not sufficient information on availability. The story doesn’t give the reader any information on where to look for the treatment other than the owner of one facility.
Although the story refers to the treatment as “new,” this is not sufficient information on the novelty of decompression.
There is no way to know if the story relies on a press release as the sole source of information.
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