An example of cheerleading journalism for local medical centers appeared in the Rapid City (SD) Journal recently. The story was headlined, “Cholesterol machine pulls out LDL.“
If only the paper had pulled out a few vital facts. But it didn’t.
The story describes a local medical center’s “new machine” called the Liposorber, to “strain out the bad cholesterol known as LDL.”
The story goes on to explain that the machine itself is not new – stating that it’s been on the market for 24 years!
Hmmm. If it’s so great, what took the medical center so long to get it?
But we never learn how great it is – except through the glowing anecdote of one patient supplied by the medical center. No data about 24 years of use was included. No cost information.
The company website says “Approximately 300,000 treatments with the LIPOSORBER System have been performed worldwide on over 2,500 patients.” Wouldn’t it be good journalism to reflect just a little bit on what’s been learned in that vast experience?
Across all levels of journalism – and of consumer decision-making – we need to get a lot better and a lot smarter about evaluating evidence.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Marilyn Mann
April 27, 2010 at 11:56 amI agree this story was lacking in certain respects. The patient who was featured has heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH), which occurs in approximately 1/500 people. However, her LDL level, according to the story was 400, which is higher than most people with heFH. Most people with heFH have an LDL level of 250-350. Most of them are treated with statins (and perhaps additional drugs), not with LDL apheresis.
LDL apheresis is almost always necessary for people with *homozygous* FH, but that only occurs in 1/million people.
The bottom line is that very few people need LDL apheresis.
As far as the science goes, it would be observational studies. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are not done on people with such high LDL levels, for ethical reasons.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like