In this very small study of 17 healthy volunteers in the Netherlands, scientists measured their sleep as they either slept in a closed room or with doors and windows open. The story claims the volunteers “slept better” with windows and door open, but gave no numbers for the amount of improvement, and didn’t do enough to let readers know this study had a lot of limitations.
Sleep quality can make an enormous difference in the risk of many chronic disorders, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control. While we welcome a discussion of sleep quality, this story about a small study provides very little context for readers on how much air quality really plays a role in sleep quality.
The opening of windows and doors has no cost.
The story doesn’t quantify what “improved” sleep quality means, only generalities.
For example, the story claims improvement in fewer awakenings:
“The number of awakenings and sleep efficiency improved as carbon dioxide levels decreased.”
But we are not given any way to understand the magnitude–how much did these things improve?
There appear to be no immediate potential harms, but the story mentions indirect ones like extra noise or concerns about security.
The story doesn’t sufficiently establish the quality of the evidence here–this was a small study, with lots of potential cofounders, which are factors that could have thrown off the measurements. The story mentions one limitation–the sleep monitors often fell of the study participants. But more needed to be said that this study isn’t rigorous enough to determine that sleeping with open windows or doors leads to improved sleep.
A sleep researcher who wasn’t involved in the study was interviewed, and we could detect no conflicts of interest.
The story doesn’t provide alternative treatments known to improve sleep quality, such as establishing good sleep hygiene.
Windows and doors are widely available, and the story mentions that opening them might not work if there are noise or security concerns.
The story does not establish what makes this research novel. It’s fairly well-known that indoor air quality can be poor, and that ventilation can help circulate the air.
The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release, and quotes a researcher who was not part of the project.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
With the discontinuation of @HealthNewsRevu, there's a genuine concern that well-written and researched "reality checks" in healthcare are not economically interesting. This should be disconcerting to anyone, and yet I'm only seeing more and more piling into "promising findings"
Thanks for ALL you do and have done, Gary. https://t.co/93K4hzQXZj
Thanks for sharing this with all of us today, @garyschwitzer @HealthNewsRevu
A nice gift.
#healthcare #healthcarenews #journalism #reporting #factsmatter #truthmatters https://t.co/hNHdZDl2rc
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