Our Review Summary
This story tackles a study that rounded up dozens of small studies to probe the effectiveness of painkiller “tapering:” a slow, gradual weaning of opioid painkillers for those who are addicted to the drugs. The story is much more than that, however, as it lays out some the core issues with the U.S. opioid epidemic, which gives the study crucial context and potential meaning.
Readers are expertly walked through the study’s weaknesses as well as an important related issue: The troubles of trying to treat people for chronic pain without using opioids, and how access to such care is problematic. One quibble, though: We think the story could have provided more numerical data on the studies themselves.
Why This Matters
Finding better strategies to help wean people off opioid drugs is critical, so any method (especially a cheap and effective one) could help turn the tide as researchers find and introduce effective alternatives to opioid prescription drugs.
Criteria
Not Applicable
Tapering is presumably free in and of itself, since it’s a slow and gradual lessening of opioids (which a person might already be using to begin with), so we’ll mark this N/A. However, it would require medical oversight and perhaps other alternative pain treatments, both of which aren’t free.
Not Satisfactory
We’re told that with tapering, based on the literature review, “patients on average saw improved pain, function, and quality of life.” But what do those terms mean, exactly, and how much of an improvement on those criteria — numbers-wise — are we talking about here? Readers aren’t told. Some numbers would have helped readers make more sense of what “improved” means.
Satisfactory
The harms are addressed right away: Come off opioids too quickly, and patients can suffer by having little recourse to deal with chronic pain. Some even resort to illicit drugs or commit suicide. One of the study’s authors is also quoted as recommending doctors and patients to exercise caution if tapering is being attempted, and another explains that not all patients respond the same way (and do poorly with tapering).
Satisfactory
This article does a thorough job of laying out the study’s design, discussing what it found, and what its flaws might be. The author, in fact, dedicated several paragraphs to hedging the study’s conclusions by walking readers through its hang-ups, including its reliance on small studies with sometimes poor methodologies. The self-selecting nature of the subjects in those studies is also described— i.e. only those who volunteered to taper off opioids were studied, not people who didn’t want to go off opioids.
Satisfactory
We didn’t see any gratuitous wording about the opioid epidemic or treating painkiller addiction in this story.
Satisfactory
A refreshing number of outside experts are quoted or cited in this story, and their remarks weren’t the typical “the study was intriguing” variety. Their quotes added some helpful context, such as how long it can take doctors to wean people off opioids (“months or even years”) and how everyone responds differently to tapering — and how some do poorly with it.
Satisfactory
This is one of the appreciable strengths of the story. It not only implies going cold-turkey as an option (and the pitfalls of that approach), but also digs into the topic of non-opioid pain-relief treatments to help patients deal with chronic pain as people they taper. We’re also told how such treatments can be too expensive/out of reach for some, even those with health insurance — either due to lacking coverage or nearby access to capable doctors and facilities.
Satisfactory
The story delivers: It states that tapering is available, yet that it’s to be attempted with caution. Non-opioid pain-relief treatments, which are also noted by the story, are also said to be available, though out of reach for many.
Satisfactory
While the approach of tapering itself itself isn’t new, this article explains that the review is novel in that it increases confidence in the idea of tapering as an effective — though with many caveats, since the studies used in the review were mostly of “poor” or “fair” quality.
Satisfactory
We didn’t detect any evidence of copy-and-paste press release quotes or passages in this story.
Total Score: 8 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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