The story reports on deep brain stimulation (DBS), a potential new treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). DBS has been used to treat movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, and recently it had been used in people with treatment-resistant depression. The story reports that this new treatment for OCD is still in early clinical trials and notes that it does not yet have FDA approval. There is speculation that the device may be approved for "humanitarian" reasons.
The story mentions that DBS is for a very small group of people with treatment-resistant OCD. The story notes that this would mean other therapies, such as medication and cognitive or other behavioral therapies would have already been tried without success prior to consideration of DBS. It would have been informative for the reader to get data on the proportion who respond to more standard treatments. The reader could be left thinking – this medication didn't work – time to go to DBS. In fact, patients would need to fail mutiple standard treatments prior to trying this treatment.
The story gives an overview of a small trial of DBS in patients with treatment-resistant OCD and depression, but it does not discuss the trial design, nor are we told if these's patients OCD symptoms improved. The story only mentions that 50% of this group (of 18 people with OCD and/or depression) scored higher on a memory test, an intermediate outcome, rather than focusing on overall response. The story does note that results from the study were presented at a conference, meaning they have not been peer-reviewed in a published journal. (See our primer on some of the flaws in trying to interpret such presentations.) The story relied heavily on one patient's anecdotal experience of reduced OCD symptoms and improved memory.
The story does not mention potential harms of the device or harms of the surgery to implant the device. There is so little long-term experience with these devices that we really don't know all the the harms.
The focus of the story was on impact on memory, but there was no discussion of the impact on the other symptoms experienced by the patients (do they get better? worse?), so the picture is incomplete The cost of this treatment is also not mentioned. Estimated costs of the device and the operation to implant the device would be available as it is currently approved for the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
The story provides multiple perspectives on this experimental approach for OCD. A patient, clinician, neurosurgeon, and a researcher involved in a clinical trial provide perspectives on this approach for people who have debilitating OCD and have exhausted all traditional treatment options.
The story does not mention the cost of this treatment. Estimated costs of the device and the operation to implant the device would be available as it is already used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
The story provides no quantitative benefit of deep brain stimulation for severe symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder except to say "two-thirds of the patients scored 50 percent higher on memory measures after deep brain stimulation." But readers are not told how reliable or significant those measures are. The story instead relied heavily on one patient's anecdotal experience of reduced OCD thoughts and behaviors and an improvement in memory.
The story does not mention potential harms of the device or harms of the surgery to implant the device. The story states that deep brain stimulation would be used "only in extreme cases" but we are not told why. There is so little long-term experience with these devices that we don't know all the the harms. Certainly infection is one of the more serious concerns, but this is not mentioned.
The story gives an overview of a small trial of deep brain stimulation, but it does not discuss the trial design, nor are we told how these patients' obsessive-compulsive disorder improved. The story only mentions that 50% of this group (of 18 people with OCD and/or depression) scored higher on memory tests. The story does note that results from the study were presented at a conference. But it does not explain whether they been peer-reviewed in a published journal. Additionally, they don't place these findings into context with other studies and they emphasize an intermediate outcome (memory) rather than focusing on overall response.
The story gives accurate prevalence data and amplifies that by giving the number of individuals severely affected or disabled.
The story provides multiple perspectives on this experimental approach to obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The story mentions that deep brain stimulation (DBS) is for a very small group of people with treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story notes that this would mean other therapies, such as medication and cognitive or other behavioral therapies, would have already been tried without success prior to consideration of DBS. That said, it would have been much more informative for the reader to get data on the proportion who respond to more standard treatments. The reader could be left thinking – this medication didn't work – time to go to DBS. In fact, patients would need to fail mutiple standard treatments prior to trying this treatment.
The story reports that this is a new experimental approach to obsessive compulsive disorder still in early clinical trials. There is speculation that the device may be approved for "humanitarian" reasons, but the story does mentions that it does not yet have FDA approval. It would have been more helpful if they told the reader whether it was only available in research protocols or for clinical use, and if it was covered by insurance.
The story reports that this is a potential new approach for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used to treat movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, and some treatment-resistant depression.
Multiple independent sources are cited in this story. It does not appear the information relies solely or largely on a news release.
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