The introduction of the Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machines represented an important development for the treatment of sleep apnea. Today, CPAP machines are standard therapy for those who are suffering from the condition. This story does a good job of explaining CPAP machines and some of the drawbacks of using them as well as laying out the alternative treatments that are available.
The story also adequately describes the treatment alternatives and does not engage in disease mongering. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
The story does not describe the costs of CPAP or its alternatives. Nor the does story adequately quantify the benefits of CPAP treatment or describe the strength of the available evidence to support its use. It would have been helpful to see an estimate of the prevalence in the population and in overweight individuals, as well as estimates of the prevalences of the serious complications. Depression, drop in sex drive, heart attacks are mentioned and one person who died at 38 of complications from sleep apnea are all mentioned but there is no indication of how commonly these occur in this syndrome.
The story does not mention costs of CPAP or the alternatives.
The story does not adequately quantify the benefits of treatment. Although the story does state how many patients are able to comply with the treatment and presents the success rate of surgery, it does not quantify the benefits of CPAP. Furthermore, the sleep expert states that a CPAP machine "works 100 percent of the time." In reality, this appears to be an overstatement of how effective the machines are.
The story comments on some of the drawbacks of using CPAP machines, particularly on how difficult many patients find it to use on a regular basis. The story could have mentioned some of the possible harms of CPAP, such as sinus problems and sores on the nose.
The story states that CPAP is very effective, but it does not comment on the strength of the available evidence to support the use of CPAP.
The story does not appear to exagerate the seriousness or prevalence of sleep apnea. However, it would have been nice to see an estimate of the prevalence in the population and in overweight individuals, as well as estimates of the prevalences of the serious complications. Depression, drop in sex drive, heart attacks are mentioned and one person who died at 38 of complications from sleep apnea are all mentioned but there is no indication of how commonly these occur in this syndrome.
The story quotes multiples experts.
The story discusses several surgical options and dental appliances as alternatives to CPAP.
The story clearly states that CPAP machines are available.
The story clearly states that CPAP machines are not a novel treatment for sleep apnea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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