The goals of therapy in Parkinson’s include a broad range of coping strategies to help patients better manage the emotional and physical toll of their disease. Stretching, strengthening, and gait and balance training are among the therapies that may help to blunt symptoms, reduce disability, and improve patients’ sense of control and well-being. A discussion of how Pilates’ exercises fit into the existing research in this area would have been informative for patients and their caregivers. The AP story instead relies almost exclusively on the testimonials of Pilates’ studio owners and Parkinson’s patients who have enrolled in Pilates’ classes. Despite the author’s contention that there is no evidence to support the efficacy of Pilates' exercises, many readers will take away the opposite message. The story fails to provide the cost of Pilates’ classes, an accounting of their availability, their potential harms (if any), a scientific estimate of their clinical value, or their context among other medical therapies and interventions for Parkinson’s. Millions of people around the world rely on wire-services articles such as this for meaningful reporting on serious medical conditions. They deserve fewer anecdotes and more science.
The story fails to discuss the cost of a Pilates' program.
The story mentions a Pilates’ pilot study at Oregon Health and Science University that "found improvement in the participants' rigidity and balance," but it makes no attempt to explain or quantify the benefits of that program (or any other) in a scientific fashion.
There is no information on the potential harms associated with Pilates' exercises.
According to the article, there is no scientific research on the ability of Pilates' exercises to blunt the symptoms of Parkinson’s. However, researchers have evaluated many other forms of physical training (e.g. stretching, strengthening, and balance and gait training) in Parkinson’s patients. A discussion of how Pilates’ exercises might fit into the existing research in this area would have been informative for patients and their caregivers.
There are no obvious elements of disease-mongering.
The AP story cites one physician, neurologist Michael S. Okun, MD, but misstates his affiliation. Okun is the national medical director at the National Parkinson Foundation, not the National Medical Foundation (as the AP story states). The article is otherwise entirely reliant on testimonials from the owners of Pilates' studios or patients who have enrolled in Pilates' programs.
The story fails to mention any other therapies for Parkinson’s.
The story says that “a few” Pilates' programs are available around the country, in addition to the program at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). But it cites no source for this assertion.
Though the story implies that Pilates is a novel therapy for Parkinson’s ("no research," "few" instructors), it does not state how long the exercise program has been used to treat Parkinson's or any other condition. And it ignores the fact that researchers have evaluated many other forms of physical training (e.g. stretching, strengthening, and balance and gait training) in Parkinson’s patients.
The Oregon Health and Science University issued a press release about its Pilates pilot program on November 10. This story, 17 days later, included an interview with a patient quoted in the press release, but added other interviews and information as well.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.