The column allows a manufacturer to make its claims but then turns to a literature search and four sources to examine the evidence.
Reading is an essential tool in a child’s development. Given the economic, social, and and academic impact of poor reading skills, it is not surprising that parents will seek out opportunities to improve their child’s skills.
Because dyslexia is “a complex and controversial condition” as the column explains, it is important to scrutinize the evidence for products and approaches promoted as being able to help about half the people with the condition.
The story explains the cost of the glasses and lenses and that the lens costs could be recurring. It did not explain if insurance covers this approach.
The story allows the manufacturer to state that the lenses can help about 50% of people with dyslexia but that “the true rate is probably much higher.”
But then it added repeated notes of skepticism from others:
Not applicable.
We don’t know what the harm would be, other than consumers pursuing a costly approach for which the evidence base is questioned.
The story explains “A search of the medical literature found a single, company-funded study suggesting that ChromaGen lenses could improve the reading skills of people with dyslexia. The study of 47 dyslexics, led by optician and lens inventor David Harris, found that ChromaGen lenses worked significantly better than placebo lenses.”
In addition to the study cited in the story, we found another recent article that showed no improvement in reading skill in 44 children aged 7-12 with Irlen Syndrome (a proposed disorder involving distortion of text when reading). (Pediatrics. 2011;128(4):e932.)
But, as noted in the “Benefits” criterion above, the story also includes others’ cautions:
No disease mongering.
In fact, the story explained that dyslexia “is a complex and controversial condition” and that one optometrist said “there are different types of dyslexia, and only people who have trouble with visual distortions while reading are likely to benefit.”
The story didn’t settle for the manufacturers’ claims. It turned to four other sources.
The column ended with one alternative suggestion from a professor of opthalmology: “It would make more sense to spend your money on something that’s proven to help. Like a tutor.”
The column explained that the lenses are marketed on a company website, which also gives a list of providers.
Not applicable. No claims of novelty are made in the column.
It’s clear that independent research and reporting was done by the writer.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Terri Thomas
July 29, 2014 at 10:27 amMy son was a pilot study recipient of the lenses. Wow! What a difference! We also provide tutoring. The tutor says he’s another kid. He now concentrates, doesn’t fidget and is less apt to get frustrated. I am very pleased with the product for my son. He actually prefers these glasses to his normal ones. His vision is +6.75. Regardless of multiple expensive optometrist vision, no prescription was helping him with the dyslexia. With these glasses, he now can see the words clearer and doesn’t lose his place when his eyes wrap around the sentences. I highly recommend Chromagen.
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.