Stating that “success” in a study of 6 people “suggests larger trials will confirm effectiveness” is not good journalism.
The harms of the intervention were also largely ignored.
So were the costs.
These are big issues.
Although this piece mentions the pilot nature of the study, the hopeful language and parallels to other therapeutic uses of DBS lead the reader to assume it is likely to work. We don’t know that and won’t for some time.
New treatments are needed for severe anorexia, but reporting on small, preliminary trials should remain grounded in evidence, not in enthusiasm.
No discussion of costs, which are significant.
In this 2008 Chicago Tribune blog post, the cost of DBS was estimated at $150,000 or more per patient in some uses. There would also be additional costs for ongoing monitoring and follow-up once the device was implanted.
The story – awkwardly – in the second sentence, states that this was a trial in 6 people that “found at least half put on weight and showed improvements in mood.”
At least half of 6? Does that mean 3? 4?
Later, much deeper in the story, it explains that “after nine months, three patients weighted more than before treatment” – so we guess the answer to “at least half” was, indeed, three. But then it says “Around half also had better moods and less obsessive-compulsive behaviour.” Again, around half of 6?
Why not give the precise number of people?
And why did the story never give the precise amount of weight gain (in pounds or percentage of ideal body weight ) that was actually observed.
Without that, again, readers are lead to believe the weight gain was substantial.
The story minimizes potential harms, stating “Implanting the DBS device requires minimally invasive surgery which can be completely reversed if problems occur.” There was no other discussion of potential harms.
In fact, the researchers reported:
“DBS was associated with several adverse events, only one of which (seizure during programming, roughly 2 weeks after surgery) was serious. Other related adverse events were panic attack during surgery, nausea, air embolus, and pain.”
There were two references to this being a “small study” but no amplification of what that really means. Instead, the story allowed a leap of faith when it stated:
“This success, in a small study designed as a pilot to test the safety of the technique, suggests larger trials will confirm the effectiveness of the deep brain stimulation (DBS) device, the researchers wrote in the medical journal The Lancet.”
Observations from a safety phase of a trial can’t do very much to “confirm” the long-term effectiveness of an approach.
This story does not point out that there is no control group and that this was done in a study center. These finidngs are not even clearly ready for replication let alone effectiveness studies.
The story quoted two independent experts.
The story stated:
“Treatment usually focuses on changing behaviour, but experts say up to 20 percent of patients get no benefit from such treatments and are at risk of dying prematurely.”
The story gave some hint of availability by reporting:
“DBS is used to treat several neurological illnesses including Parkinson’s disease and chronic pain. Scientists are also investigating its use in depression and epilepsy, but this was the first time it had been used in patients with anorexia.”
For the same reason as our “Availability” criterion score above, we’ll give a Satisfactory grade because of this line:
“DBS is used to treat several neurological illnesses including Parkinson’s disease and chronic pain. Scientists are also investigating its use in depression and epilepsy, but this was the first time it had been used in patients with anorexia.”
It does not appear that story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Even when stories get the facts right, they often fail to provide crucial context and caveats that would help audiences make sense of the news — or lack thereof, says @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/b7YO2fYt0a
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
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