This long (3,000 words! – yes, some papers still give that much space) story is well written and appropriately addresses the full range of our evaluation criteria. It covers some of the issues surrounding cosmetic injection procedures for management of fat bulges. The procedures are variously called injection lipolysis, lipodissolve ormesotherapy. The story makes it very clear that the materials used in these injections do not have FDA approval for this purpose and that there is little scientific data demonstrating efficacy. The story does a good job of providing a sense of the personal motivation that entices individuals to consider this treatment. And it provides quotes from several physicians who indicate clear concerns about the safety of the procedure.
While such stories often have a "buyer beware" flavor suggesting professional credentialing may be the key to positive outcomes – this piece was clear that there is no key to positive outcomes in this case.
It earns one of our top 5-star scores.
The story provided a range of cost estimates from the experience of two consumers and what was termed the largest national provider of the procedure.
The story quotes several physicians who state that the use of this procedure is way ahead of the science supporting it. It definitely gives the reader the sense that we lack studies that would quantify the benefits of treatment.
The story provides examples for the range of harms that may result from this treatment.
The evidence presented in this story is anecdotal. But the article mentions the lack of good evidence about efficacy and safety, and it also notes that two companies are pursuing clinical trials.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story draws on individual testimony as well as interview material with physicians involved in the use of this procedure (both pro and con) and individuals involved in the manufacture of the material used in the procedure.
The story mentions diet and exercise as well as liposuction for reduction in adipose tissue.
The story detailed the range of providers from whom this intervention is available. The lack of FDA approval is mentioned in the first paragraph.
The story provides a historical context for this treatment.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
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.