This story may leave the reader with the impression that the evidence in support of exercise as a treatment for repetitive motion injuries is more consistently positive than it really is. The lead author of the literature review is quoted as saying that it’s not possible to draw firm conclusions, yet the story depicts exercise as ‘the best medicine’ for these (sometimes) work-related complaints.
The evidence for the value of exercise was actually found to be similar to that for the value of ergonomic approaches such as specially designed keyboards. In both cases the authors found conflicting evidence that these strategies help. While the difference in wording (conflicting versus limited evidence) may seem like splitting hairs, limited evidence means that positive outcomes were found in one well-designed trial, or consistently positive findings across multiple trials. On the other hand, conflicting evidence means that outcomes across trials were inconsistent–sometimes positive, sometimes showing no effect at all or perhaps even a negative effect.
The story might have done better to highlight how little is actually known about what works for these disorders–particularly in light of how much money is spent to address them. Most of the reviewed studies were poor quality and too small to draw any valid conclusions. While quoting experts who assert that various approaches can help makes for an interesting story, it doesn’t reflect what the available research shows–and so may not be as helpful as the writer may have intended.
The story quotes an expert who states that exercise is ‘cheap’, which is generally true, but can vary depending on the type of exercise. The exercises included in most of the studies examined were taught and supervised by trained individuals, which can increase the cost.
The story does not provide any data (either relative or absolute) about the benefits of exercise and other approaches to managing these injuries. This was probably appropriate, because outcomes are defined in different ways depending on the study, but the story author might have explained it. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and grade it satisfactory.
The potential harms of exercise in the context of repetitive strain injuries, such as making the injury worse, are not mentioned.
The story accurately describes the original article as a review of studies, but it misstates the authors’ conclusions and makes it appear that exercise was far more effective than ergonomic approaches. In the original review, 8 of 14 studies looked at the effects of exercise compared with no treatment, and the authors state that here they found conflicting evidence of the effectiveness of exercise. The story inaccurately states that ‘the majority found positive results.’ Although the authors reported that the evidence for ergonomic adjustments such as special keyboards was also conflicting, the story says that evidence of their efficacy was limited.
It should also have stated that most of the 22 studies reviewed were rated as poor quality by the reviewers, and that 103 of the 126 references reviewed were rejected for various reasons.
The story states that the direct and indirect costs associated with repetitive strain disorders are as much as $100 billion dollars annually in the U.S. The original article actually estimated these costs at about 1/50 that much, or $2 billion. This exaggeration of impact is a form of disease-mongering.
Story quotes the lead author of the review as well as other experts, whose affiliations are provided.
The article correctly states that many types of exercise have been studied for repetitive strain injuries. However, rather than “hiking, cycling, walking, swimming and yoga,” as stated in the article, the studies examined generally were investigating the effects of prescribed exercises in a supervised context.
The story mentions that exercise in various forms has been studied as a potential therapy for repetitive strain injuries for many years and is not new.
The story does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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