For patients who are paralyzed, the hope for miracles that permit movement or at least more interaction with the world around them is likely to be quite strong. This article states the very limited success of a brain implant device. But it may portray false hope that this may be an option for current patients.
The story overstates the benefits of the implant multiple times by saying that the technology can help “paralyzed people” and “paralyzed patients” – implying that there is more than one person involved. The reality is that, so far, the technology “worked” for one person and two monkeys – hardly enough to assume that this technology will truly end up helping people in the real world. Furthermore, it is difficult to state whether this person was truly helped by this technology because the amount of control that he achieved was not very good.
The story does not comment on the availability of the treatment, nor does it mention costs, which are likely to be astronomical. The story also does not mention the alternative technologies, including scalp electrodes and devices that pick up eye movements. The story also did not mention harms of treatment, which, since the implant goes through the skull, presumably include at least the risk of infection.
The individuals studied in the Nature report represent research subjects who must have been very carefully screened and aware of the novelty of the treatment. The article should have clearly stated that the widespread availability of such devices is likely many years off at best.
It is good that the story quotes an independent neurologist: “Duke University neurologist Miguel Nicolelis, who was not part of the studies, said he is surprised that Nature published a report on an ongoing patient trial, noting that two other patients have received implants, and the 25-year-old patient has since had his removed after a year of use. Nicolelis expressed concern that the journal is in effect promoting a medical-device company with the study.”
The story does not mention costs, which are likely to be astronomical.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. Moreover, the story overstates the benefits multiple times by saying that the technology can help “paralyzed people” and “paralyzed patients” – implying that there is more than one person involved. The reality is that the technology worked for one person and two monkeys – hardly enough to assume that this technology will truly end up helping people in the real world. Furthermore, it is difficult to state whether this person was truly helped by this technology because the amount of control that he achieved was not very good.
The story does not mention harms of treatment, which, since the implant goes through the skull, presumably include at least the risk of infection.
Although the story mentions two reports in the journal Nature, there is insufficient information on the nature of the existing evidence. The story mentions the limited success of the device, but the lead sentence implies that it allows paralyzed patients to use a computer.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes the authors of the two study and a neurologist not associated with the studies. It included this important perspective: “Duke University neurologist Miguel Nicolelis, who was not part of the studies, said he is surprised that Nature published a report on an ongoing patient trial, noting that two other patients have received implants, and the 25-year-old patient has since had his removed after a year of use. Nicolelis expressed concern that the journal is in effect promoting a medical-device company with the study.”
The story does not mention the alternative technologies, including scalp electrodes and devices that pick up eye movements.
The story does not comment on the availability of the treatment. Nowhere does the story mention that this treatment is not available outside of the study reported.
The story clearly states that this technology is new.
Because the story quotes an independent neurologist and does not lift text from the company’s press release or from the article in Nature, the reader can be confident that the story does not rely 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