This is a nice, concise piece that highlights a new surgical device designed to fit into an already crowded field. On its face, implants tailored for women’s knees have a certain appeal. This story asks whether their merits extend beyond marketing to improved outcomes after surgery—in the form of greater pain relief or patient satisfaction. Readers quickly learn that no one knows. The unfolding story covers a lot of ground in a very short space (375 words). It points out that there is so far no credible evidence to show whether the Gender Knee by Zimmer is as good as, better than, or worse than other artificial knees designed by competing manufacturers. Though it’s more expensive than other implants, quantifying the benefits of the Gender Knee is currently an exercise in speculation. Three different sources fill out the tale—a spokesperson for the medical society representing the nation’s orthopaedists, a spokesperson for knee implant manufacturer Zimmer, and chief of the knee service at one of the busiest joint replacement centers in the world (who has consulted for one of Zimmer’s chief competitor, the story notes)—a balanced group whose potential conflicts readers can judge for themselves. Unfortunately, the focused piece leaves out important information that would provide even more balance. For example, an extra sentence could have explained that knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative condition that causes pain and impairs mobility in mostly older men and women. Moreover, all knee operations have potential harms (e.g. blood clots, infection, even death), and all require time for recovery. In part, that’s why some people choose to opt out. For those that do, there are reasonably effective nonsurgical options. Aside from these relatively minor caveats, however, this is a well done story.
The story says the implant designed especially for women is “more expensive” (presumably in comparison to most other options) even though its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Still, we wish the story included an actual cost estimate of the device and its implantation. Readers aren’t given any idea of whether this is a ballpark of $200, $2,000 or $20,000.
The article explains that there is so far no independent data quantifying the benefits of the new Gender Knee implant for women.
All patients who undergo knee replacement operations have a small risk of complications (e.g. blood clots, infection, even death). Does the new gender-specific knee implant increase or reduce these or other potential harms? The article does not pose this question. At the moment, no one knows the answer.
The news brief points out that there is so far no credible evidence to show whether the Gender Knee is as good as, better than, or worse than other artificial knees designed by competing manufacturers. Research is in the works, according to the report, but early results won’t be ready for another year or so. Though the article does not mention the scientific literature on the differences between men’s and women’s knees, it generally supports the manufacturer’s assertions reported in the article.
There are no obvious elements of disease-mongering. An extra sentence could have explained that knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative condition afflicting mostly older men and women.
Three different sources fill out this compact story—a spokesperson for the medical society representing the nation’s orthopaedists, a spokesperson for knee implant manufacturer Zimmer, and chief of the knee service at one of the busiest joint replacement centers in the world (who has consulted for one of Zimmer’s chief competitor, the story notes)—a balanced group whose potential conflicts readers can judge for themselves.
The story notes that other manufacturers make implants that may be just as good as or better than the Gender Knee for women. We wish the story had included an additional sentence on nonsurgical alternatives to remind readers that surgery is a matter of patient preference—and many patients choose to opt out.
The story makes it clear that the Gender Knee is generally available to women who are candidates for total knee replacement.
The news brief explains that the Gender Knee is new, but asks whether it is really all that different from existing implants designed for smaller patients.
No obvious use of text from the press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
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