The story focuses on a recently published journal article that evaluates the available research on whether antidepressants or psychotherapy may reduce the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The article does a good job of addressing the limitations of the research and incorporating input from independent experts. However, the story fumbled a bit when explaining the results of the meta-analysis, and didn’t discuss costs or harms of treatments.
According to the CDC, IBS affects more than 1 percent of the U.S. adult population. And those living with IBS can often suffer from a reduced quality of life. In other words, a great many people are very interested in news about therapeutic options for addressing their condition. While we think the story does a good job of stressing that antidepressants and psychotherapy don’t constitute a “silver bullet” for addressing IBS, we think it’s important to highlight that one of these options (antidepressants) carries risks of its own. And both options can carry significant costs.
Costs are not addressed. Antidepressants and psychotherapy can be expensive, and are not always covered even for those patients with health insurance.
The story attempts to quantify the benefits. We’re told that “rates of ‘no relief’ were highest with placebo treatments. People were 34 percent less likely to have no relief from antidepressants and 31 percent less likely to get no relief from psychotherapy, the study found.”
However, that phrasing is difficult to parse. The story would have been stronger if it had specified whether it was addressing absolute risk or relative risk, and expressed that information in clearer terms. What does “relief” mean? Complete resolution of symptoms or something less dramatic?
Potential harms are also not addressed. This is particularly problematic for the sections of the piece that deal with antidepressants. For example, the story specifically mentions both tricyclic antidepressants (which have potential side effects ranging from constipation to sexual problems) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (which can also pose health risks). We don’t expect a story like this one to provide an exhaustive overview of risks associated with these classes of drugs, but we do think it should at least acknowledge that there are risks.
The story does a pretty good job of describing the study, which evaluated evidence from 53 trials — including language that highlights the limitations of those studies.
The story incorporates input from two third-party experts. The story does not speak to potential conflicts of interest, which is a shortcoming. We found no potential conflicts to report, but think it is worth making that clear in a story.
The story does refer to dietary interventions that are used to reduce IBS symptoms.
The story would have been stronger had it mentioned pharmaceutical interventions that may be used in IBS treatment. These pharmaceuticals often have limitations and potential drawbacks of their own, but given that the story specifically evaluates the use of antidepressants as a therapeutic intervention for IBS, this seems like a significant oversight. Why? Comparing some treatment to no treatment is very different from comparing some treatment to established treatment to see if benefits are comparable or better.
The story doesn’t specifically state that the antidepressants and treatment options studied in these various trials are available for clinical use. However, we think it can be broadly assumed that readers know these treatment options are available. As such, we’ll rate this as not applicable.
The paper being reported on in this story is an update of an earlier journal article that reviewed the available research on whether antidepressants or psychotherapy may reduce the symptoms of IBS. Of the 53 trials incorporated into this most recent review, 48 of them also appeared in the previous review. In other words, the current review incorporates data from only 5 new trials — four on psychotherapy and one on antidepressants. To what extent, if any, did the incorporation of data from these five trials change the findings of the review? Did the new data support what researchers already knew? Or did the data change our understanding of the relationship between IBS and antidepressants or psychotherapy?
The story incorporates original reporting and does not appear to be based 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