Our Review Summary
This article explores artificial lung devices currently in development at the University of Maryland Medical Center and elsewhere. It is an example of a local newspaper reporting on potentially significant medical research occuring within its circulation area.
But the story falls short in several important ways:
- It fails to apply scrutiny to the optimistic and self-interested claims made for the devices, and fails to seek commentary from independent sources.
- It fails to provide information about the costs and outcomes for current devices and treatments.
- It fails to explore the potential benefits and harms of the improved devices on outcomes and mortality.
The story also uses as its hook an extraordinary example of someone who has survived an unusually long time on existing technology. This is a confusing way to begin a story about new technologies, and leads readers to expect a story different from the one delivered.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The writer does not cite the costs of the current ECMO treatment, the costs of a lung transplant, or the total costs the patient in the opening anecdote generated. It also fails to report on how costs might differ with the new technologies under development. And, if readers aren’t clear about this, these are very expensive treatments.
Not Satisfactory
The report does not specify survival rates using current technologies, nor does it attempt to quantify the extent to which the new devices could improve that.
Not Satisfactory
The article discusses at length the potential benefits of the devices under development but does not discuss potential harms. The problems of clotting and damage to blood cells are mentioned as potential barriers but are not presented as harms of treatment, how they contribute to mortality, etc.
Not Satisfactory
The report does not cite evidence that would support optimism about the coming generation of artificial lung devices. The story is based on an inference, offered early on, that because one patient was able to live for over 100 days on the old technology that a new technology could work better.
Satisfactory
There is no disease-mongering in the story. But it would have been helpful to cite the sources of the following statistics: "Some 1,405 American patients received new lungs last year, but 254 died awaiting them. Another 342,000 patients with conditions too severe for transplants died of lung disease."
Not Satisfactory
It appears that all medical sources consulted for the story are involved with developing similar machines. Most work for the same institution. Their financial and professional conflicts of interest are not revealed.
No independent medical sources are interviewed on the prognosis for current artificial lung users, for lung transplant patients or for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. No independent sources are consulted on the importance or value of these devices in development.
Not Applicable
There are no other treatment options available for these patients.
Not Satisfactory
The article eventually explains that the artificial lungs under development are uNPRoven and at best a few years from clinical use. But it does not do this early and clearly enough, leaving readers to believe for too long that there are important new machines imminent or in use.
The use of an anecdote about someone barely surviving on an old technology contributes to the confusion about whether a superior device currently exists.
Satisfactory
The article explains that the technologies under development would be novel, largely because of the improved quality of life they may offer patients.
Satisfactory
There is no evidence the article relies on a press release.
Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory
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