This story reported on a clinical trial of gastric banding in adolescents. The story didn’t provide a framework for viewers to understand the pros and cons that a patient should factor into their decision about weight loss surgery. Without information about realistic expectations for amount of weight that can be predicted to be lost, the essential component of limiting caloric intake to achieve any weight loss at all, and the possible harms that have been documented to occur as a result of the procedure, it is impossible for a viewer to make good use of the information provided about the trial at this time. The story didn’t provide any context for how this procedure fits within the framework of weight loss treatments for the adolescent population. The story could have made it clear that this device is currently approved for use in adults, and the study is simply trying to determine if it is safe and effective for adolescents.
Costs weren’t discussed. And the story said that those who had the surgery had "few side effects." How few is few? And what kind?
These are the kinds of questions viewers need answered.
There was no mention of costs.
Although this broadcast did provide the weight loss information for one patient (who went from 250 to 145 lbs) and experienced a self-assessed improvement in social interactivity, it failed to quantify for the viewers a reasonable benefit to expect from the treatment.
Other than at the end of the piece, where the reporter mentioned that there were "few side effects" in this clinical trial, there was no mention of the harms associated with the gastric banding procedure. What does "few side effects" mean? How few? What kind?
There was no evidence presented about amount or maintenance of weight loss following gastric banding or how this might compare to other approaches to weight loss. This is a story about a device undergoing an initial FDA trial. There is very little evidence on this, but they could have presented what is available. And they should have noted how little is known about the device in this population.
The story included interviews with a surgeon involved in the clinical trial and with an apparently independent bariatric surgeon. But the story failed to mention sources of funding for the study, or whether the the surgeon interviewed has potential conflicts of interest. No perspective is provided about why this might not be a good idea.
There was no discussion of treatment options; the story should have mentioned alternative treatment approaches for this age group.
This piece discussed a weight loss surgical procedure used for an adolescent in the context of an FDA-approved clinical. Though this might imply something to a viewer about the general availability of this procedure for people in this age group, it should have been clearer about this.
However, there was no mention about whether or not institutions not participating in the clincial trial would do the procedure in this age group of patients; there was no discussion about what made such a trial an important thing to conduct.
Although this was a story about the use of a specific weight loss surgery in a new population in which it is currently being assessed, this broadcast did not really provide any context for how this procedure fits within the framework of weight loss treatments for the adolescent population. The story could have made it clear that this device is currently approved for use in adults, and the study is simply trying to determine if it is safe and effective for adolescents.
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release, as there is a second source interviewed.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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