The public impact of academic and print media portrayals of TMS: shining a spotlight on discrepancies in the literature.
Agenda setting
Ethics
Media
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 03 2022
13 03 2022
Historique:
received:
29
04
2021
accepted:
28
02
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
29
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an FDA approved treatment for major depression, migraine, obsessive compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction. TMS has gained popular media support, but media coverage and commercial reporting of TMS services may be contributing to the landscape of ethical issues. We explore the differences between the academic and print media literature portrayals of TMS to evaluate their ethical impact for the public. We performed a comprehensive literature review using PubMed and NexisUni databases to evaluate the literature available on TMS from 2014 to 2019. Our sample consisted of 1632 academic articles and 468 print media articles for a total of 2100 articles. We then coded each article for seven specific top-level codes: (1) type of source, (2) year of publication, (3) purpose of TMS application, (4) age of subjects, (5) population, (6) overall tone, and (7) specification of TMS parameters. We also made some additional notes of the TMS parameters where specified and the breakdown of mental health applications. Our results indicated several discrepancies between the academic and the print media reporting about TMS technology, particularly with regards to tone and specificity. Namely, the academic sample was largely neutral and specific about the parameters under which TMS was being applied, while the print media sample was heavily optimistic and presented the application of TMS with far less specificity. There was some convergence between the two samples, such as the focus of both on therapy as the predominant TMS application. We call upon the academic community to increase scrutiny of TMS services in order to ensure that people's knowledge of health technologies is not unduly influenced by sensational claims and a general lack of adequate information.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an FDA approved treatment for major depression, migraine, obsessive compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction. TMS has gained popular media support, but media coverage and commercial reporting of TMS services may be contributing to the landscape of ethical issues.
METHODS
We explore the differences between the academic and print media literature portrayals of TMS to evaluate their ethical impact for the public. We performed a comprehensive literature review using PubMed and NexisUni databases to evaluate the literature available on TMS from 2014 to 2019. Our sample consisted of 1632 academic articles and 468 print media articles for a total of 2100 articles. We then coded each article for seven specific top-level codes: (1) type of source, (2) year of publication, (3) purpose of TMS application, (4) age of subjects, (5) population, (6) overall tone, and (7) specification of TMS parameters. We also made some additional notes of the TMS parameters where specified and the breakdown of mental health applications.
RESULTS
Our results indicated several discrepancies between the academic and the print media reporting about TMS technology, particularly with regards to tone and specificity. Namely, the academic sample was largely neutral and specific about the parameters under which TMS was being applied, while the print media sample was heavily optimistic and presented the application of TMS with far less specificity. There was some convergence between the two samples, such as the focus of both on therapy as the predominant TMS application.
CONCLUSIONS
We call upon the academic community to increase scrutiny of TMS services in order to ensure that people's knowledge of health technologies is not unduly influenced by sensational claims and a general lack of adequate information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35282833
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00760-5
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00760-5
pmc: PMC8919547
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;69(4):1137-1151
pubmed: 31127779
Indian J Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;61(Suppl 1):S66-S76
pubmed: 30745679
Ind Psychiatry J. 2018 Jul-Dec;27(2):172-180
pubmed: 31359968
J Med Ethics. 2011 Mar;37(3):137-43
pubmed: 21106996
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 02;10(12):e0144151
pubmed: 26629998
Cortex. 2009 Oct;45(9):1043-9
pubmed: 19166996
Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Dec;120(12):2008-2039
pubmed: 19833552
Neuron. 2014 May 21;82(4):731-6
pubmed: 24853934
Brain Sci. 2019 Apr 14;9(4):
pubmed: 31013983
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Nov;269:145-156
pubmed: 30149272
Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-346
pubmed: 27090022
Front Neurol. 2019 Jan 24;9:1146
pubmed: 30733704
Health Commun. 2010 Apr;25(3):230-7
pubmed: 20461608
BMJ Case Rep. 2018 Nov 5;2018:
pubmed: 30396889
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2018 Sep;41(3):433-446
pubmed: 30098656
IRB. 1997 Mar-Apr;19(2):1-7
pubmed: 11655322
Clin Neurophysiol. 2021 Jan;132(1):269-306
pubmed: 33243615
AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Oct-Dec;12(4):257-269
pubmed: 33759705
Brain Stimul. 2021 May-Jun;14(3):723-724
pubmed: 33901705
Perception. 2006;35(6):837-45
pubmed: 16836048
Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Sep;123(9):1698-704
pubmed: 22647458
Behav Neurol. 2006;17(3-4):149-57
pubmed: 17148834
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Jan;108(1):1-16
pubmed: 9474057
Bioethics. 2017 Jun;31(5):338-348
pubmed: 28503833
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 May 18;18(1):137
pubmed: 29776355
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Aug 11-25;163(15):1808-12
pubmed: 12912716
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 May 27;364(1522):1399-405
pubmed: 19528023
Lancet. 1985 May 11;1(8437):1106-7
pubmed: 2860322
Neuroimage. 2014 Jan 15;85 Pt 3:961-70
pubmed: 23770409
Exp Neurobiol. 2019 Feb;28(1):1-16
pubmed: 30853820
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Jan 11;10:678
pubmed: 28123362