Our Review Summary
This story gives readers a good sense of the tentative nature of this research. It points out that the results seen in patients with epilepsy might not be replicated in those with Alzheimer’s disease. But the story should have done more to point out the inherent risks of pushing wires deep into a patient’s brain. Some comparison to the size of the temporary memory boost provided by available drugs would have helped put the results of this test in better context.
Why This Matters
The terrible effects of Alzheimer’s disease and the lack of effective treatments create desperate desires for new options. Stories that report on this line of research should emphasize the caveats and cautions in order to take into account the power of wishful thinking by families and friends of people with dementia.
Criteria
Not Applicable
This line of research is so preliminary that we won’t criticize a story for omitting cost estimates. However, as the story notes, similar technology is used to treat some people with Parkinson’s disease and other disorders, so the story could have told readers how much those applications cost.
Satisfactory
The story reports that the test looked only at a simulation of learning how to navigate a virtual city. It points out that this test does not prove that electrical brain stimulation can overcome memory problems caused by Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia. An independent source quoted in the story points out the experiment did not show if the effects last.
Not Satisfactory
Even though the researchers did not report any harms to participants in this study, the story should have mentioned that while similar treatments are considered safe enough in the right circumstances, implanting electrodes and electrical stimulation devices can cause bleeding, strokes, infections, mood changes, movement disorders, sleep problems and other harms.
A recent study of deep brain stimulation (DBS) involving 99 Parkinson’s patients concluded that DBS “has an adverse effect on executive functions with implications for daily life of the patients and their relatives.” Almost 10% of those DBS patients had psychiatric events including a suicide attempt.
Satisfactory
The story notes that this test included only a small number of participants, and that while it is called “promising” and one quote said it is a “first, important step,” there were also quotes and comments pointing out that many questions remain. Specifically, the story noted that the patients in this test were being prepared for treatment to reduce epileptic seizures and that there may be important differences between them and typical Alzheimer’s disease patients.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerate who might eventually benefit from this line of research.
Satisfactory
The story includes an independent source. Although it does not mention whether the researchers have any conflicts of interest, the authors reported no conflicts in the disclosure forms posted online by the New England Journal of Medicine.
Not Satisfactory
The story should have made some mention of the drugs currently available to improve memory function of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Although these drugs do not alter the progression of the disease, a comparison of their memory-enhancing effects to the level of improvement seen in this test would have given readers a useful way to better understand the size and duration of the effect these researchers saw.
Satisfactory
The story is clear that this research is in its early stages, though devices are available that provide similar deep brain stimulation to patients with other disorders.
Satisfactory
The story notes that brain stimulation is already used to treat other disorders, but that using it to boost memory would be new.
Satisfactory
The story does attribute quotes from a researcher to a news release, but it also includes quotes from at least one other source, so it does not appear to rely only on the release.
Total Score: 7 of 9 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