HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Healing Power: Using Stem Cells to Build Better Bones
April 15, 2009
No discussion of costs - which are significant - nor of evidence, which is limited. Instead of data, the segment gushed calling it "godsend...really exciting...very important...could be lifesaving."
Our Review Summary
CBS put a crawl under this story reading "Stem cells to build better bones." And then failed to mention stem cells even one time in the story.
That's one indication of how off-base this segment was.
- No discussion of costs - which are significant.
- No discussion of evidence, which is limited.
- No discussion of the source of the information, but we can assume it was a recent study for which there was no control group to compare the results to. Furthermore, that study has not yet been published and the full results have not been reviewed by other experts. These are important caveats that the story should have mentioned.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Story explains the drug Forteo was approved by the FDA for use in osteoporosis in 2002 but gives no idea how widely it's used for bone healing. The story is based on a preliminary report involving 145 patients with poorly healing bone fractures. Based on the results of this small study, a larger and presumably more confirmatory study is in the planning stages. But you wouldn't know that from the story.
A huge oversight. One other news account reported that the drug costs $800 a month. How could this NOT be part of the story?
The medical correspondent notes that the risk of death can be as high as 1 in 4 within a year post major bone fracture. There is no evidence that the use of Forteo reduces this risk and the definition of a major bone fracture was not provided. The implication is that there are a lot of major bone fractures in the elderly due to falls, and the use of Forteo could reduce the unsubstantiated risk of death of 1 in 4.
None. Nada. Zip. Just a before-and-after image of one case.
No discussion of harms. Not even a mention that the drug needs to be given by injection.
There is no mention of the fact that the drug is being used "off label," an important consideration. The use of Forteo (actually a synthetic version of parathyroid hormone) in fracture healing has been studied for a number of years. Most of the work has been in animals.
None. And segments tend to give the impression that the benefits are universal for anyone taking the drug. Instead of data, the segment gushed calling it "godsend...really exciting...very important...could be lifesaving."
We can't be sure if the segment relied solely or largely on a news release.
Since only a physician-correspondent appeared on the set, citing no evidence and no sources, we don't know the source of the information.
No other treatment options for bone healing were discussed.
Total Score: 0 of 9 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.