LA Times provides careful take on early brain/diabetes research–except for the headline
Rating
Deep brain stimulation may offer treatment for type 2 diabetes, study suggests
Our Review Summary
This Los Angeles Times story reports on a study with some tantalizing new information about connections between the brain and the body’s metabolism. The research is novel, very preliminary, and more about introducing a new avenue of study for researchers rather than a new therapy for people with type 2 diabetes. The story maintained this framing well — that the findings are useful for researchers more than clinicians at this time. However, the headline and the photo credit undermine this carefulness with phrasing suggesting a new treatment option: “may offer treatment” and “may provide alternative treatment.” Given that the headline may be the only part of this article seen by many readers, it’s an important shortcoming.
Why This Matters
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease that affects 1 in 10 Americans and continues to increase. The disease is the leading cause of kidney failure, limb amputation, and blindness and the seventh leading cause of death in the US. We know many of the risk factors and have treatment options, and yet there is a lot of room for improvement in managing this chronic disease. In addition, greater understanding into the cause of the disease and ways to counteract the deficits in metabolism that are the hallmark of diabetes are much needed.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Even though deep brain stimulation (DBS) is not close to being recommended for diabetes, it is a current therapy for Parkinson’s disease and other movement and psychiatric disorders. Thus, cost information could have been included — we found estimates ranging from $35,000 – $50,000.
Of course, the costs associated with the use of this technology for diabetes might differ from the costs with Parkinson’s disease. However, our rule of thumb in these situations is, If it’s not too early to claim this approach “may offer treatment,” it’s not too early to discuss what that treatment may eventually cost.
Satisfactory
The article did a good job describing the current evidence for deep brain stimulation on insulin sensitivity, which is still in the earliest of stages. A single patient receiving DBS for obsessive-compulsive disorder reduced his need for insulin dose by 80%. Description of more fundamental experiments were not quantitatively detailed, which seems acceptable for the health focus here.
Satisfactory
The article summarized a variety of evidence that supports a connection between deep brain stimulation (specifically dopamine neurotransmission) and metabolic regulation (specifically insulin sensitivity). The story also spends plenty of time establishing the preliminary nature of the research and its lack of clinical application at this time. Although this careful framing is undermined by the aggressive wording of the headline, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt and award a satisfactory grade here.
Satisfactory
No disease-mongering here.
Satisfactory
The story quotes a physician-researcher who was not involved in the study.
Not Satisfactory
Because the story mentions that the new findings might “pave the way for a new approach to treating type 2 diabetes,” we think it’s important to briefly review for readers what the current approaches are, such as diet, exercise, and a variety of diabetes medications.
Satisfactory
The story makes clear that deep brain stimulation is a current therapy, though not yet for diabetes.
Satisfactory
The story makes clear that the novelty of this study is that it introduces a new brain area (the nucleus accumbens rather than the hypothalamus) as having regulatory control over metabolism.
Satisfactory
The story does not seem to rely on a news release.
Total Score: 7 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