Our Review Summary
You may need to read this story several times to try to understand what this new study might mean for early detection of autism spectrum disorders. It would have helped readers to have more time spent with the methods used in the study and the actual findings than in the interpretations being made by a scientist with an advocacy organization. Additional information about the patients and controls in the study would have been helpful. For example, are they primarily newly diagnosed?
Why This Matters
As the story notes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced that 1 out of every 88 children has been diagnosed as having an autism spectrum disorder. That’s a huge increase in just a short span, and parents need better tools both to detect signs of autism and to help their children cope. However, the story could have pointed out that, in part, the rapid increase is due to improved detection and broadening of the diagnosis to include a clinical spectrum.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There is no discussion of costs in the study, even though EEGs have been in use for more than 60 years.
Not Satisfactory
The story was about a test. Stories about tests should quantify how well the test worked, how sensitive, how specific, how often, how many times out of how many times tried, etc. This story provided none of those measurements.
Not Satisfactory
Nor is it clear what the potential harms might be. The rise in autism diagnoses has been controversial in part because once a child is put “on the spectrum” they may be treated differently by the educational system, not to mention other kids.
If EEG is used inappropriately and ‘overdiagnosis’ is a concern, this could be a problem.
Not Satisfactory
The story provides the basic elements of the research, but we wish it had gone a little deeper. One big missing piece is any discussion of the limitations of EEG tests for this type of analysis. EEGs are conducted by connecting electrodes to the scalp, and they are notorious for failing to capture brain activity deep inside the brain. So while they may be documenting differences in brain patterns between the autistic and non-autistic groups, they may also be missing other similarities and differences.
The story also does not give enough detail about the strength of the association between EEG findings and the clinical behaviors. (
Satisfactory
The story does not engage in disease mongering, and we were glad to see that Dr. Dawson’s comments focused on the new study and not on the broader question of the number of children with autism spectrum disorders.
Satisfactory
We’re giving this one a pass here, but we thought that more time could have been spent with the only other independent expert quoted in the story, who was given one sentence to offer perspective.
Satisfactory
The story does mention that autism is a clinical diagnosis (and though this research study was not about diagnosis, it deals with better understanding the brain activity behind the behaviors which lead to the diagnosis). It would be hard for the writer to do much more than that.
Not Satisfactory
It is not clear from this story that EEGs are widely used in research or whether they currently have other clinical applications. We can’t assume that consumers know this. If my chlid is not speaking by a certain age, can I go to my doctor and ask for an EEG? And, if I do, what would be the next steps?
Satisfactory
The story nicely explains that this research builds on earlier research by including a larger group of children being studied. It says, “‘What was unique about this study is the very large number of children studied,’ Dawson noted. ‘Consistent with many previous studies using EEG and functional MRI with both children and adults with autism, these investigators found that, overall, children with autism show reduced coordination (coherence) across brain regions.'”
Satisfactory
The story does not rely on a news release.
Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory
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