May 31, 2018 Read Original Story

LA Times provides careful take on early brain/diabetes research–except for the headline

Reviewed By

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

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

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.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

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.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article did not mention side effects of deep brain stimulation, which may include brain bleeding, stroke, seizure, and mood and cognitive changes.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering here.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story quotes a physician-researcher who was not involved in the study.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

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.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story makes clear that deep brain stimulation is a current therapy, though not yet for diabetes.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

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.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story does not seem to rely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.

Getty Images