Far more questions than answers are provided by this story – see some of our questions below.
In the end, it’s not clear why this recycled news release is even newsworthy.
In the huge wave of medical science stories that flood the American public every day, editorial decision-makers need to evaluate what the impact is of overwhelming readers with an endless stream of stories about findings, about progress in research, about un-analyzed medical minutiae.
Journalists have an obligation to filter, to assess, to analyze, to evaluate – not merely to open the floodgates to unvetted news releases.
Cost is not particularly relevant in this case.
No adequate explanation was given of the measurement of how “pain was reduced” and no quantification was given of the degree of reduction nor of how many of the 143 study participants experienced what degree of pain relief.
Not applicable; we don’t know what harm could come from attempts at music therapy
The story was taken directly from a news release, spewing exactly what was said in the news release and no more.
There was no critical analysis.
There was no independent perspective evaluating the finding.
The story was unclear about whether pain or anxiety was the dominant issue.
The story also did not explain that shocking volunteers is not the same as studying patients with a clinical pain condition.
Not applicable. Readers weren’t told anything about what kind of pain – from what conditions – the study participants were experiencing.
Point of clarification: It’s not clear that these participants were suffering from any kind of pain other than the shocks provided by the investigators. They’re described as “volunteers.”
The story lists a news release as its source and it’s clear this was its only source.
Feels like holiday-week filler material.
No comparison was made with any other known method of pain relief. Then again, as already stated, we don’t know anything about the pain these study participants had, so the entire story is void of vital information.
We’re going to rule this unsatisfactory because we’re not told what kind of music was used (couldn’t that be an important variable?), nor for how long study participants were exposed, nor the setting (home? research setting?) – nothing that could address the potential availability of this approach.
Music therapy has been studied for decades across a range of conditions. The story didn’t even acknowledge any past research in any other field.
The story admits that an American Pain Society news release was its sole source.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Bonnie Nordby
December 31, 2011 at 11:22 amOh, thank you for your great analysis. I have felt bombarded and bewildered by the amount of “health news” that hits myself, my friends, and my family. I have been trying to help others by giving cautionary gentle reminders not to swollow everything that is offered. I myself had to learn that lesson too. What you are doing is so valuable and I will gladly help anyway I can. Bonnie
nancynursez637
January 3, 2012 at 5:36 pmIt is kind of simplistic, however it does not go far enough, it limits the use of music to those with pain who are anxious, eliminating those with pain who use music for progressive muscle relaxation as part of a chronic pain coping protocol with out “anxiety”
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