NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Electric ‘noise’ treats Parkinson’s symptoms

Rating

3 Star

Categories

Electric ‘noise’ treats Parkinson’s symptoms

Our Review Summary

To its credit, this story delivers something we don’t often see in health news: an anecdote from a patient who wasn’t helped by the treatment being profiled. That’s a welcome inclusion in a field that too often hypes the benefits of treatments with unjustifiably frothy language.

But that bright spot couldn’t completely make up for a number of deficiencies in the coverage. Our wish list includes an independent expert comment from a clinician who treats Parkinson’s patients, some discussion of the limitations of this 10-person study, and a more detailed description, with numbers, of how much the patients benefited.

 

Why This Matters

Because Parkinson’s disturbs gait and balance, patients are at greater risk of falling. Any intervention that would reduce that risk could be a boon to treatment. In addition, many patients have adverse effects with levodopa, the pharmacologic mainstay, so non-pharmacologic interventions to improve symptoms would be helpful.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Though the device remains experimental, the story says it is similar to other TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) devices. A typical cost for TENS according to an internet search varies from $40 to $200 — a figure that the story could easily have provided. Some insurers may cover this cost, but possibly not for conditions where there is not a clearly demonstrated benefit.

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

Not Satisfactory

We’d like to point out this story’s reporting on a patient who didn’t receive any benefit from the device. These kinds of anecdotes are rare and valuable in health stories, which too often focus on patients who achieve spectacular, unrepresentative results. The reality for many patients is often more prosaic, as this quote nicely conveys:  “I have become hardened in the sense that I do not have too great expectations. But I still believe that something will be found at some point which could be useful. There is extensive research in this field and I hope that it eventually will come up with a result.”

That being said, we have to rate this story Not Satisfactory because it never quantifies the apparent benefit, summarizing it instead in general terms: “According to the research institute, the experiments showed that the active noise stimulation improved both the patients’ balance and the combined symptoms.” Patients need to know something about degree of benefit to determine if this is something that may be worth exploring.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story makes no mention of harms, though the study itself says that the intervention resulted in increased nausea in two patients.

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

Not Satisfactory

There is not enough detail as to just what the evidence is here. Although we see from the story that there was a study involving 10 patients, it’s not clear how the results were disseminated or whether they’ve undergone any independent quality control via peer review. (As it turns out, the study was published in December in the journal Brain Stimulation.) And while the story describes in broad terms how the researchers tested the device, it offers no caveats or discussion of limitations. We’d note that a study involving only 10 patients is certainly limited in what it can tell us about the effectiveness of this device. In addition, the researchers noted that the balance measurements they took of the study patients were surrogates or proxies for the outcome that really matters to Parkinson’s patients: falls. It’s not clear whether the improvements the researchers saw will translate to reduced risk of falls for Parkinson’s patients.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story makes no reference to the incidence of Parkinson’s, and there are no ‘alarm statements’ about the condition.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story provides useful comments from the primary study investigator, but that’s not quite enough to earn a satisfactory rating here. At the least, we’d expect a comment from a clinician who cares for Parkinson’s patients to provide some independent insight on this treatment.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story says that levodopa is commonly used to treat the symptoms associated with Parkinson’s, and notes that the drug’s efficacy tends to wane over time.

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

Satisfactory

The story makes clear that the device is experimental and, as a result, not available to the public. For comparative purposes, the story could have cited the cost of other devices that use the TENS technology.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story notes that the TENS technology has found use in other areas of medicine.

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

Satisfactory

The story does draw considerably from this news release, as noted below:

Story:

The researchers have also tested the method on ten Swedish Parkinson’s patients, in both medicated and unmedicated states. According to Sahlgrenska, on one day the patients received an active noise stimulation and on another day inactive treatment, not knowing which day the current was active. According to the research institute, the experiments showed that the active noise stimulation improved both the patients’ balance and the combined symptoms.

News Release:

The researchers have now tested the same method on ten Swedish Parkinson’s patients.

The patients were studied in both medicated and unmedicated states. On one day, the patients received an active noise stimulation and on another day inactive treatment, blinded to which day the current was active. The experiments show that the active noise stimulation improved both the patients’ balance and the combined symptoms.

However, because the story includes quotes from the primary investigator and a study subject, we can be sure that the press release wasn’t the only source of information.

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.