HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Cutting the fat--without incisions: New weight-loss surgery
June 03, 2009
Breathless enthusiasm - not backed by facts about new incision-free approach to weight loss surgery. Story calls it "remarkable" and "exciting" but that results aren't as good as gastric bypass.
Our Review Summary
The segment reports on a novel approach to weight loss surgery that is incision-less. The procedure itself is apparently still under development and investigation. There was no indication of when it would be available or why it's not yet available. The reporter does a lot of hand waving about the evidence for benefit with this procedure... it was called "remarkable" and "exciting" and noted to have fewer complications than other procedures, but no specific information was given about its impact on body weight, health, or risk of complications, including death. Perhaps these data aren't yet available? If so, it's worth emphasizing that this procedure is still experimental and needs more study to know if it is safe and truly effective. It is novel to have a weight loss procedure that is incision-less, but incision-less doesn't mean "without risk" especially in this patient population. Overall, the story suggests that this is a risk-free way to lose weight and the only down-side is the cost -- clearly this is not true and is a mis-representation of the risks involved in general anesthesia for any patient with severe obesity.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story says "If all goes well, about a year and a half from now, this may end up being the most popular surgical way for obese Americans to lose weight." Huh? On what basis is that a year and a half prediction made? On the word of the surgical innovators?
One good thing about the piece: it acknowledged cost, stated that the cost was uncertain yet, but put it in the context of gastric band procedure - "about $13,000 to $20,000."
No overt disease-mongering.
No clear data - only confusing comments. Early in the piece the reporter calls the results "exciting" and "remarkable."
But later she says, "The results aren't quite as good as gastric bypass patients, but about the same result as the gastric band and with no cutting."
Viewers want to know: How much weight loss can be expected. Where does the data come from? What's the quality of the evidence?
Unbelievably unhelpful. The story says "Although there have been some complications, doctors say overall, the incisionless surgery is less painful and safer." What exactly ae the complications? You can't wave them off like that without any details.
We suppose the segment tried to establish the novelty of this particular surgical approach. But are they going to give network airtime to every new weight surgery approach?
No quantification of benefits.
We can't be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release. We do know it profiled just one prized patient at just one medical center.
Only one physician-user was interviewed in the segment. Where is the independent analysis of this approach?
An incomplete comparison of this new approach with existing weight loss surgical procedures - incomplete largely because there is no data - no evidence - presented.
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.