This U.S. News & World Report story looks at using back braces for lower back pain.
The story does some things well–it discusses the potential harms of back braces, for example, and provides information on how much they cost. But there’s a big problem overall with the story: It claims that a new study—a meta-analysis of 28 different studies that was published in the Annals of Physical Rehabilitation Medicine—shows back braces might provide some sufferers short-term pain relief.
But here’s what the study actually concludes: “To date, there is no proof to prescribe lumbar support in the management of low back pain general population.” What’s more, the story doesn’t explain the study is (at this point) only a brief abstract from a rehabilitative medicine meeting. Such meeting abstracts offer few details on study design, methodology, results, significance, or conclusions — they’re mainly discussion pieces for professionals who gather at meetings, and serve as previews for more fleshed-out research that’s in the works.
This makes the premise of the U.S. News story questionable, and its lack of any meaningful discussion of the study’s details or quality doesn’t help. In effect, the research abstract serves as a weak tool to discuss back pain, back braces, and how and when to seek treatment.
Back pain is “one of the most common medical problems, affecting 8 out of 10 people at some point during their lives,” according to MedlinePlus, a patient information run by the National Institutes of Health. And according to The Lancet’s Global Burden of Disease Study, back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. If research reveals that wearing an inexpensive back brace stands to actually help alleviate pain and accelerate recovery compared to alternatives (e.g. drugs and surgery), it’s newsworthy.
We’re told over-the-counter lumbar support devices range in cost from $25 to $130, while prescription devices can cost up to $1,000.
The benefits aren’t quantified, and that’s probably because the meeting abstract the story is based on doesn’t provide any itself. However, if the reporter had contacted the abstract’s authors, getting such details ahead of a more fleshed-out research paper might have been possible. This may also have allowed the writer to share the preliminary study with outside experts and get their take.
The story describes a few possible harms of back brace use, including skin lesions, muscle wasting, and even gastrointestinal disorders, but notes their rarity. It also describes more common harms, such as irritated skin, and solutions to those problems.
No real evidence is presented about the meta-analysis; all we’re told is that back braces “can provide short-term relief.” How many studies were examined? How many patients? How long was the follow-up? These are all questions that are left unanswered.
The subject matter itself–lower back pain–is indeed a common problem, so we’ll rate the story satisfactory. The story’s intro–which describes some back pain as a “giant electrified claw […] tearing into each nerve” and a “torturous” feeling with sleight movements that can come with stiffness as bad as “hardened concrete”–was perhaps melodramatic.
But more importantly, it’s never made clear what the differences between acute, subacute, or chronic back pain are, and how the meta-analysis applies to each. It would have been helpful to readers to explain the differences. Also, the story implies that the patient can go get one of these devices at a store and try it on. But is that a good idea? Should a doctor be consulted? It’s not made clear.
A handful of medical experts were quoted in the story, but not in any way that assessed the quality or scope of the research. They mostly provided anecdotes and advice on back brace use. Also, the meeting abstract states that the “authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest,” which the story should have noted in some way. (For example, if they are funded by a pharmaceutical company with a stake in questioning the efficacy of a cost-effective solution for back pain, as opposed to expensive medications, that’s a pertinent detail.)
Alternative treatments for back pain are discussed–though minimally. Still, there’s enough to rate satisfactory.
We’re told back braces are available over-the-counter at drug stores, and that custom-made braces can be ordered, too.
The “new” thing here is not that a back support device might help alleviate pain, which is where the story focuses most of its word count. Back braces have been around for a long time and most studies have found them wanting when the evidence is reviewed.
What’s new is the meta-analysis: pooling similar but disparate data generally provides a more reliable assessment of an intervention. But again, those detailed results are not yet publicly available, but the main take-away in the summary was contrary to what the U.S. News & World Report story premised its story upon.
We didn’t see any copy/pasted quotes or any evidence the story borrowed significantly from 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.
Joe Ellison
January 17, 2017 at 5:46 pmFWIW, and I realize that anecdote =/= data, but I can assure you that “hardened concrete” and “tortuous” are accurate descriptors for the severe back spasm and pain that can accompany fibromyalgia. It is not at all melodramatic, but the best description available.
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