Our Review Summary
This story does a bit better job than the other one we reviewed of describing electrical brain stimulation treatment as it is used in other types of patients, and pointing out that it is “very invasive.” Still, it could have been more specific about the inherent risks. Like the other story, it misses a chance to compare the results of this experiment to the size of the temporary memory boost provided by available drugs.
Why This Matters
The terrible effects of Alzheimer’s disease and the lack of effective treatments create desperate desires for new options. Stories that report on this line of research should emphasize the caveats and cautions in order to take into account the power of wishful thinking by families and friends of people with dementia.
Criteria
Satisfactory
This line of research is so preliminary that we don’t think it’s necessary that stories report specific cost estimates. This story did include a comment about similar treatments being very expensive.
Satisfactory
The story is clear that this test was just a preliminary experiment to see if brain stimulation can have any memory effects in people. It notes that while researchers say it is worth exploring as a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, there is no evidence yet that it provides such benefits.
Not Satisfactory
While this story (unlike the HealthDay story we reviewed) at least mentions that deep brain stimulation is “very invasive,” it should have listed at least some of the major risks of implanting electrodes into the brain connected to stimulation devices under a patient’s skin, including bleeding, strokes and infections.
A recent study of deep brain stimulation (DBS) involving 99 Parkinson’s patients concluded that DBS “has an adverse effect on executive functions with implications for daily life of the patients and their relatives.” Almost 10% of those DBS patients had psychiatric events including a suicide attempt.
Satisfactory
The story includes several mentions of the preliminary nature of this work. It points out that there may be important differences between the epilepsy patients in this study and typical Alzheimer’s disease patients and that there is no proof this technique will work for patients with dementia.
Satisfactory
The story mentions the estimated number of people with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States and that their ranks are “swelling,” but it does not exaggerate the prevalence of the disease or the portion of the population that could potentially benefit if this line of research makes progress.
Satisfactory
The story quotes an independent source and includes a comment from an editorial that appears along with the research report in the New England Journal of Medicine. It does not refer to any conflicts of interest, but the authors reported no conflicts in the disclosure forms posted online by the journal.
Not Satisfactory
This story offers a bit more information about existing treatments than the other story we reviewed, but all it says is that available drugs cannot prevent Alzheimer’s disease from progressing. The story would have been better if it had given readers some sense of how the memory-enhancing effects of available drugs compare to the size and duration of the effects seen in this test of brain stimulation.
Satisfactory
The story describes how brain stimulation is now used to treat some patients with Parkinson’s disease and other disorders, while making clear that more research is needed before anyone will know if it offers any benefits to people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Satisfactory
As mentioned above, the story points out that this sort of technique is used to treat other problems.
Satisfactory
This story includes direct quotes from an interview with an author of the researcher report so it’s clear that it did not rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory
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