HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Dialysis more often doesn't help patients
May 21, 2008
Giving critically ill kidney patients dialysis more than the standard three times a week does not improve their survival, a study has found.
Our Review Summary
This was a story about a recent study indicating that at least in the case of dialysis for individuals with acute kidney disease, more is not better. Although the story could have been clearer about the differences and definitions for chronic and acute kidney disease, it did a good job explaining that at least for the type of patients studied (those with acute kidney disease), additional dialysis failed to prevent death or rate of organ failure. It also mentioned that the additional dialysis did not improve in recovery of kidney function.
The story then went on to inform the reader that although additional dialysis did not demonstrate benefit in this type of patients, that there may be a specific confluence of medical conditions wherein additional dialysis may be appropriate.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
It's clear from the story that more versus less frequent dialysis would be based in normal clinical practice on a variety of clinical indicators (as mentioned by one of the physicians).
There was no cost information provided, but the story was about the results of a study that demonstrated that more dialysis did not provide additional benefit.
The story did not appear to engage in disease mongering apart from the fact that it seemed to conflate chronic and acute kidney disease.
The evidence presented in this story comes from a study which has not yet been published, though it is available online. The story mentioned the number of people studied as well as the fact that they were randomly assigned to the different treatment groups. It included both the percentage of people in each group that died as well as the fact that the difference between the groups was found not to differ.
The story qualified the information about additional dialysis not being beneficial by having a quote from a clinician indicating that there are some specific situations where additional dialysis is warranted. In so doing, the story was able to present a harm of not allowing for additional dialysis.
The story described the results of a soon-to-be published study and described this clearly. That said, it also mentioned that there had been previous studies, which were smaller and were based on outcomes from individual institutions with different outcomes from the study reported on. This provides a context for the reader to understand that the study reported on was not done in a complete vacuum of information.
The clinician quote near the end suggested that more dialysis may have benefit for certain patients but did not provide data. However - the story said that the study reported on did not find additional dialysis to provide benefit, thereby quantifying the benefit as "none"
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
The story included quotes from several clinicians with expertise in dialysis.
No other treatment options were mentioned, though other than refusal of treatment, there usually aren't any. The story is about two commonly used approaches to dialysis in acutely ill patients. Decision-making is largely physician based; the over-arching decision then is dialysis or no dialysis (which because of the seriousness of the patient condition would likely be fatal).
Total Score: 8 of 8 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.