This study of flashing light therapy enrolled 39 people, and exposed 31 of them to a series of two-millisecond light flashes with changing intervals while sleeping. The other eight were exposed to 60 minutes of continuous bright light. Those who experienced the flashing light were more quickly able to alter their circadian clock and thus, in theory, more quickly adapt to a new time zone. The report covered the main bases found in the published research and, unlike a CNN article on the same study, included the helpful commentary of an outside observer who was able to add context to the meaning and impact of the study.
Jet lag is a significant concern for many people who have to travel distances that span multiple time zones, where their ability to work effectively is compromised as the body struggles to adjust to a new time zone. This means a simple, but effective light therapy session could bring much-needed relief to those who have to travel but also, possibly, to those who do shift work and are frequently forced into combat against the body’s natural circadian rhythms. People who work in important jobs where alertness and quick adaptability to changing sleep schedules are required (airline pilots, doctors, nurses, ambulance attendants, truck drivers, etc) may benefit from such a therapy.
While no costs were discussed, the suggestion that the device might be expensive was made: “The night flashes require special technology and equipment, beyond just a smartphone, which are still in development, Zeitzer said.” We’ll consider this nod in the direction of cost sufficient for a Satisfactory rating, since it would be difficult to say exactly how much such a device would cost at this stage.
Benefits of those who experience the flashing light therapy over those who have the continuous light therapy were described this way: “A series of flashes similar to a camera flash delivered every 10 seconds over a 60-minute period delayed sleepiness by two hours, compared to a 36-minute delay for those exposed to continuous light for an hour.”
These quotes were also helpful in quantifying and understanding the benefits:
“In essence, using the night before you traveled from California to N.Y. would move your circadian system two-thirds of the way there before you even left,” Zeitzer said.
Arriving in New York, you would be synced to the local time after one day, he said.
The report indicated there was no harm involved: “In a previous study, the short flashes of light at night did not interrupt sleep or reduce its quality.” This report also indicated helpful additional information from an outside observer, Anna Wirz-Justice, professor emeritus at the Center for Chronobiology at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who was not part of the new study, who said: “Mistiming light therapy can make jet lag worse.”
This report rates satisfactory on the quality of evidence by including cautionary advice from an outside observer saying that independent verification needs to happen: It is “far too early – neither the methodology is available [to] outside research, nor any guidance about safety, nor tests of simulated jet lag in an appropriate ‘realistic’ protocol,” according to Anna Wirz-Justice.
The report included this helpful phrase to indicate that this isn’t a ‘real’ disease: “’Jet lag itself is really a nuisance syndrome as it is self-resolving,’ said senior author Jamie Zeitzer, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California.”
This article scores well on consulting an independent source by quoting a researcher who was not part of the study, Anna Wirz-Justice, professor emeritus at the Center for Chronobiology at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
The study could have made reference to other systematic reviews of therapies used to treat jet lag, such as Cochrane Reviews on caffeine or melatonin.
This article made it fairly clear that this technology wasn’t ready for consumers by mentioning that further research needed to happen and that frequent flyers shouldn’t try this on their own.
The article is clear that the study is based on substantial theory about the effects of light on circadian rhythms and mentions previous research that the team had carried out, so there is no misleading representation as to the technique’s novelty.
Given the helpful comments from an outside (not involved in the study) researcher, we would say the report did not substantially 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
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