The story again highlights the difficulty in covering presentations from academic conferences, as such studies are not yet peer-reviewed and published in medical journals. Although the correlation between Mozart and detection rates is interesting, the article could have gone beyond the press release and looked at the study from a more critical angle, with a more thorough explanation of the so-called “Mozart Effect.” Although the news release was a bit of a challenge to decipher, the story based on it did not clearly explain its meaning for the reader.
There are no extensive costs associated with listening to Mozart’s music.
The absolute dfference in adenomas was not reported, only percentages. We’re told it was a small study. How small?
No foreseeable harms or side effects in listening to music during procedures.
The article does state that “data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.” However, the story should have discussed the limitations of such a small study and clarified the researchers’ methods and results. The story does not mention if other variables were accounted for, or if the correlation between Mozart and higher detection rates could have been due to other factors.
The study only had 2 physicians in it, and was not truly blinded.
The story provided some brief information on invasive colorectal cancer, based on the information in the news release.
There were no independent sources cited from outside the study. The only comment came from the lead researcher, Dr. Catherine Noelle O’Shea from the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Was music the only option for improving detection? Experience of the physician is probably closely related to detection rate, as well as number of procedures done per year. Let’s give Mozart his due, but let’s analyze the evidence on other alternative explanations as well.
Not applicable. There’s no question about the ability of anyone to listen to any of kind of music while doing colonoscopies.
Many studies, both positive and negative, have been conducted on the so-called “Mozart Effect.” And the story makes brief reference to past studies.
The story clearly was based on a press release by the American College of Gastroenterology. Similar language and the same quotations were used. There was not any evidence of original reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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