This engaging article highlights the serious problem of concussions in children and how to treat them. The issue is presented from a mother’s point of view, with input from the treating physician and other experts. The symptoms, treatment, and outcome are all provided, making for a nice story. We offer just a few suggestions for what might have made the story even better.
Concussions are a very common injury in children, and are most likely underreported. Though sports-related concussions get most of the attention (and they occur in all sports), any activity that can shake the brain can cause concussion. There are clear guidelines on treatment of concussions, with benchmarks for allowing a child to return to various activities such as school work and sports. It’s important to recognize that a concussion can affect a student’s ability to learn, as well as his or her physical and mental health. This story reports on the theory that it is crucial for a student with symptoms of a concussion to “rest” the brain – that is, to not engage in activities that require concentration and attention (take a exam, play video games, text, drive a car), and instead use the energy for the brain to functionally recover.
As one of the experts in the story points out, “the treatment needs to be individualized.” All therapies have costs. Some stab at estimating a range of time/costs could have been made. With the story discussing hospitals adopting protocols, it certainly seems a cost could be identified for a protocol.
The story does not present quantitative evidence, but rather presents qualitative viewpoints of experts.
The story illustrates how hard it can be for a parent to enforce cognitive rest.
Mixed bag. At one point, the story labels cognitive rest as an “extreme response” – which may strike some as extreme editorializing. But then the story goes on to explain that cognitive rest has been “gaining traction in the last two to four years” with the Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness calling it “the mainstay of management” and a 2008 consensus statement on concussion in sport supporting the idea. It’s also endorsed by the CDC’s “Heads Up to Schools: Know Your Concussion ABCs” materials. Because the story arguably devotes more space to a discussion of the evidence than most stories, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
No disease mongering in the story.
If anything, the story missed a chance to explain that according to the CDC, almost half a million emergency department visits for concussions and other traumatic brain injuries are made annually by children aged 0 to 14 years.
The story cites several sources and provides their affiliations.
The treatment is put in context with other treatments.
The story refers to the growing use of cognitive rest.
Mixed bag. Although the headline calls it “a new course” and the story at one point calls it a “new approach,” the story also explains that cognitive rest has been “gaining traction in the last two to four years” – making clear that it’s not a brand new concept. We’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story clearly does not rely on a press release.
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