This story reports on a method of rehabilitation after spinal cord injury called locomotor training. This method has been gaining in popularity after the much-publicized improvements in the condition of Christopher Reeve. This story accurately reports on the availability and novelty of the treament, but otherwise gives the reader very little in the way of useful information.
The story does not provide the reader with information on the costs or harms of treatment, and what, if any, alternative options may exist. The story does not quote more than one expert and does not quantify the benefits of treatment. Most importantly, however, the story does not discuss the strength of the available evidence to support the use of the treatment. From the story, it is unclear if locomotor training has been studied systematically or if there is just anecdotal evidence to support its use in humans (only animal studies are mentioned).
The story does not mention costs.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment.
The story does not mention any possible harms of treatment. Specifically, it would be important to mention that in new spine injuries with fractures, there can be instability that needs to be treated first. Mobilization activities such as these could be harmful in that situation.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence. It's unclear if locomotor training has been studied systematically or if there is just anecdotal evidence to support its use in humans (only animal studies are mentioned).
The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering, although the story could be clearer about who is or is not a candidate for this kind of treatment.
The story only quotes one expert. The story should have quoted other experts who could have provided more balance. It could have turned to a spinal trauma expert from one of the many institutions that do not offer this form of treatment.
The story does not mention any treatment alternatives. Although there is a brief mention of "traditional therapy," the story does not place locomotor therapy in the context of current care options.
The story mentions that locomotor training is only available in a handful of centers in the U.S. and access is limited. The story should not have implied that the treatment has gone "mainstream" because it is only available in 17 hospitals in the US.
The story implies that locomotor training is not a new idea, but that it is one that is gaining in acceptance.
There is no way to know if the story relies 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