Acute rejection is a major concern in organ transplantation. Rejection is normally treated and prevented with immune supressing drugs, including steroids, to prevent the body from attacking the foreign organ. However these drugs are associated with significant side effects and harms, especially when taken for long periods of time. This story reports on an interesting new technique of transplantation that involves treating the organ with the donor’s own stem cells to protect the organ from a response by the recipient’s immune system.
The story does a great job of describing the novelty and availability of the new technique. It quotes multiple sources, describes the alternatives and does not engage in disease mongering. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence by describing the studies as "preliminary" and bringing attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as "groundbreaking" and "breakthrough" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings.
Furthermore, the story should have described the costs of the new technique and mentioned the potential harms.
Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique.
Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique.
The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy.
The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes the studies as "preliminary" and brings attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as "groundbreaking" and "breakthrough" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings.
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease.
The story quotes multiple experts
The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique.
The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers.
The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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