The lead had us hooked. We kept reading for the evidence, but we couldn’t find any. There was no quantification of the benefits. No mention of potential harms. No discussion of costs. No analysis of the size of the study or its limitations. In nearly every one of our criteria, the story fell short.
This was a very disappointing article. There is the assertion that the intervention works (and some evidence given for effects on brain function via changes in EEG) but not enough information to know what was done, how many patients, how long they were treated, the effects on behavior, etc.
As the study itself notes, there have been no clinical trials to date to show that early behavioral therapy in children with autism can have a positive effect on brain development. Instead, parents with autistic children are left without any proven options for helping their children. The rising number of children being diagnosed with autism has created a significant demand for a therapy that will work, and journalists owe it to readers to carefully vet studies of experimental approaches like this.
The story does not discuss costs. And we can only assume that two years of therapy would be quite expensive for families and, as yet unproven in multiple trials, likely would not be covered by insurance.
The story makes a bold claim in the lead: “Early, intensive autism treatment improves children’s brain development, a new study shows.” It does not go on to quantify the benefits found in the study. How many of the kids showed brain improvement? And how was that improvement measured? The story provided only the qualitative description “The [brains of] children who received the ESDM looked virtually identical to typical 4-year-olds,” Dawson says. “The children that received the interventions normal in their communities continued to show the reversed pattern.”
In addition, we don’t know the clinical significance of a change in EEG.
There is no mention of any potential harms in this story. It is very possible that the therapy itself does not have any actual side effects, but we always think the risk profile of a therapy is worth a mention.
This study was in 48 children. Given all of the unknowns around autism and the complexities of autism spectrum disorders, it is important for readers to understand that this study captured a very small group of kids and that its results may not be cause for widespread optimism about altering autism’s course. There is nothing in the story that triggers us to understand the quality of the evidence. We can infer that it is a comparative study – but beyond that no real information is given.
The story receives kudos on this count. There are very few stories about autism that do not spend time trying to alarm parents about the rising number of cases. There is more fear and mistrust around autism than most childhood disorders, in part because of the constant drumbeat that the numbers are on the rise and that your child could be next. More reporters should take the straight forward approach that WebMD has taken here.
We thought the story spent too much time with the lead author of the study, but we appreciated the comments from Arthur L. Beaudet, MD, professor of molecular and human genetics, pediatrics, and molecular and cellular biology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He said, “To the extent early intervention helps brain development, it is more likely to help by letting the brain compensate and get around the problems rather than reverse them. …We do know if you damage the brain of a young child, like in an accident, the infant brain has a tremendous ability to recover and get around the problem.” More voices like this would have helped readers understand the importance of the findings and the likelihood that they would have a broad application for children with autism.
It is a low bar to get one outside source but at least this was done.
We’re giving the story a pass here because the reporter and Dawson acknowledged that there are other therapies available. “Although she and her colleagues developed the ESDM treatment, Dawson is quick to point out that it’s not the only effective autism treatment. The key, she says, isn’t the treatment — it’s the timing.”
It is not clear from the story whether this therapy is being used anywhere or whether it is something that only Dawson and her colleagues are testing out in small settings.
Although the study itself makes the claim that “This was the first trial to demonstrate that early behavioral intervention is associated with normalized patterns of brain activity,” the story does not address that stated claim of novelty.
Basically, this is a reasonably novel treatment with a novel outcome (EEG activity – although one of uncertain importance).
In the nature of news, what’s really new should be pointed out and if it’s not new, that should be pointed out as well.
The story does not appear to rely 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 (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
nhokkanen@comcast.net
November 2, 2012 at 1:29 pmAfter 10 years of reading government and corporate-funded studies, inept journalism, and jingoistic medical trade union reports, I’ve concluded that parent-to-parent anecdotes (aka “empirical evidence”) provide the most efficacious evidence in treating the medical and psychological symptoms of autism. Indeed, the best research so far is coming from scientists, physicians and nurses whose children have suffered regressive autism.
A very recent study indicated that up until six months of age, autism symptoms cannot be found in infants. The autism epidemic will continue to grow until the medical community finally starts studying the health of children who’ve regressed after vaccination (e.g. Hannah Poling, daughter of a Johns Hopkins scientist and an emergency room nurse/attorney).
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