HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
The Cutting Edge: Amazing Journey Inside the Brain
May 04, 2009
Another gee-whiz Good Morning America segment that fits their apparent formula: no discussion of costs, no quantification of benefits or harms, and no independent source.
Our Review Summary
Brain disorders such as brain tumors, dementia and epilepsy are common and vexing health problems. Advances in imaging have helped identify these problems earlier and in some cases, such as certain kinds of stroke, finding these problems fast and treating them appropriately can significantly improve outcomes. This story reports on an experimental new kind of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) that uses special coils to get higher quality pictures of the brain than was previously possible with traditional MRI.
However, the story does not describe the cost of the device, or of MRIs in general. The story also assumes insurance will cover it without providing any justification for this claim. Nor does the story quantify the benefits (known or unknown) of the device. The story also does not mention any harms of the device. While MRIs are very safe, the story could have mentioned that the device may find small abnormalities that would never go on to cause a problem, potentially leading to unnecessary treatments.
While the story does not exaggerate the seriousness of brain disorders such as brain tumors, seizure disorders and dementia, it does repeatedly exaggerate how well they could potentially respond to early detection and treatment. The story reports that this device "produces much clearer and faster images of the brain that could someday save your life." In reality, unfortunately, it isn't clear at all that any of the conditions mentioned in the story can actually be helped.
The story could have been improved by quoting more experts. The story only quotes one expert - Bruce Rosen - who is biased because he is invested in the development of the device.
Most importantly, the story does not comment on the available evidence to support the use of the device. The story provides one case study of a patient with seizures but this is not adequate information for the viewer. Furthermore, the story makes many claims that the device can help better treat many brain conditions, however it is not clear that early detection can do anything for certain disorders such as dementia.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story mentions that the device is not currently available but should be in the next few years. The story should have provided more justification for this claim.
The story does not describe the cost of the device, or of MRIs in general. The story also assumes insurance will cover it without providing any justification.
While the story does not exaggerate the seriousness of brain disorders such as brain tumors, seizure disorders and dementia, it does repeatedly exaggerate how well they respond to early detection and treatment. The story reports that this device "produces much clearer and faster images of the brain that could someday save your life." In reality, unfortunately, it isn't clear at all that any of the conditions mentioned in the story can actually be helped.
The story does not comment on the available evidence to support the use of the device. The story provides one case study of a patient with seizures but this is not adequate information for the viewer. Furthermore, the story makes many claims that the device can help better treat many brain conditions, however it is not clear that early detection can do anything for certain disorders such as dementia.
The story mentions no harms of the device. While MRIs are very safe, the story could have mentioned that the device may find small abnormalities that would never go on to cause a problem, potentially leading to unnecessary treatments.
The story accurately represents the novelty of the device.
The story does not quantify the benefits of the device nor does it comment on the lack of data available to be able to quantify the benefits.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
The story quotes only one expert - Bruce Rosen - who is biased because he is involved in developing the technology.
The story mentions other imaging tests as the alternative - standard MRIs and CT scans.
Total Score: 3 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.