HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Study: Kidney angioplasty brings risks, no benefit
November 11, 2009
Overall, a good job on a story about another study that shows that newer isn't always better in health care.
Our Review Summary
This is another study - of which there have been several notable ones recently - that shows that newer isn't always better in health care.
As Yale's Harlan Krumholz said in a key quote in this story, "What's remarkable is that this procedure got so popular and adopted into widespread use before a study like this was conducted to show us what its value may be."
Overall, the AP story did a good job. It could have been improved by:
- providing at least a ballpark estimate of costs, instead of just calling the angioplasty a "pricey procedure"
- providing some data on how "benefit" was measured. So how well do medications work? What were the rates of death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure, etc.? The story didn't tell us.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story gives an estimate of how widely kidney angioplasty is used.
The story refers to kidney angioplasty as a "pricey procedure" but offers no ballpark estimates of what that means.
The story provides National Kidney Foundation estimates of the scope of the problem.
The story provided an adequate explanation of the nature of the evidence.
The story provided absolute numbers of harms in the angioplasty group within the first month after treatment.
A kidney foundation spokesman said this report was "the first hint" that medication may produce equal results to angioplasty.
While the story included the important statement from one researcher that "There really was no benefit," the story nonethless never gave any data on how "benefit" was measured. Or what the absolute data were for either treatment group. So how well do medications work? What were the rates of death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure, etc.? The story didn't tell us.
Given that several sources were interviewed, it is unlikely that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
3 different independent sources were quoted.
The story was about different treatment options for blocked kidney arteries. And it did an adequate job presenting the data comparing the options.
Total Score: 8 of 10 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.