This story reports on the use of botox injections to treat spasmodic dysphonia, a rare but disturbing condition in which an individual could lose their voice. Botox is being increasingly used to treat a variety of neurological conditions that involve involuntary muscle movements, or spasms. This story vividly describes what it must be like to have this difficult condition, but does little to provide consumers with important information, such as the evidence to support the use of Botox, how much the injections cost and any potential harms of the treatment.
The story does indicate that Botox is widely used for wrinkles but that it is a relatively new idea for spasmodic dysphonia.
While stating that Botox is now "the standard of care" for this condition, the story does not give any sense of how many practitioners are available who are skilled at the specialized injections nor does it state how much they cost, which could be substantial given that the injections are needed every 4 or 5 months. Furthermore, the story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence to support the use of Botox for spasmodic dysphonia.
The story says that "The injections help about 90% of patients with the most common type of spasmodic dysphonia." But 90% of how many? In what trials? It does not mention any harms, such as difficulty swallowing. The story does indicate that over time Botox wears off and that the individual may become resistant to it, but this is not adequate information on harms. Finally, the story does not provide enough information on alternative treatments. The story mentions vocal therapy briefly, but does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of vocal therapy compared to Botox. Nor does the story mention other treatments such as surgery or counseling.
The story does not mention cost of treatment, which could be substantial given that the injections are given every 4 or 5 months.
The story says that "The injections help about 90% of patients with the most common type of spasmodic dysphonia." But 90% of how many? Was it 90% of 10 patients or 90% of 100 patients? The absolute data is important for readers to know.
The story does not mention any harms, such as difficulty swallowing. The story does indicate that over time Botox wears off and that the individual may become resistant to it, but this is not adequate information on harms.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence to support the use of Botox for spasmodic dysphonia. The story indicates that Botox is now the standard of care for the condition, and says that "The injections help about 90% of patients with the most common type of spasmodic dysphonia." But 90% of how many? In what trials?
The story does not appear to exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of spasmodic dysphonia.
The story only quotes one expert and several patients. The story should have quoted other clinicians or experts who could give some more perspective on the potential benefits and harms of Botox.
The story mentions vocal therapy briefly, but does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of vocal therapy compared to Botox. Nor does the study mention other treatments such as surgery or counseling.
The story said Botox injections have become "the standard of care," implying widespread availability. It could have been more explicit, especially about how many physicians are trained in this type of specialized Botox injections.
The story does indicate that Botox is widely used for wrinkles but that it is a relatively new idea for spasmodic dysphonia.
There is no way to know if the story relied soley or largely on a press release. It did only cite one expert source.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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