This article provides a good overview of arguments for and against use of a brain-oxygen monitoring system for heart surgery. It also provides an excellent explanation of how the device works, and how it may reduce risk of cognitive damage following surgery.
The biggest problem with the story is the lack of evidence and quantitative data about cognitive harm both with and without the device. While the story implies that conclusive data are not available, it should have cited the most relevant research and provided the necessary caveats.
Finally, a failure to mention the option of beating-heart surgery for some patients–a technique shown to reduce risk for cognitive damage–is a significant oversight.
The story indicates both the price of the machine ($30,000) and the cost per use ($200) — a valuable bit of reporting.
Due to the lack of evidence reported (see Evidence criterion above), there is no quantification of the risks and benefits of using the device.
The story makes clear, with brief references, that the cognitive risks range from minor to major, and that they could impair patients’ subsequent ability to work. However, since the story is about the use of the oxygen monitor device, the story falls short since it does not indicate whether there are any potential harms associated with the device itself.
The story does not report the best scientific evidence available about the controversy. Any data likely come from studies supported by the manufacturer, but it still may be worth citing.
The absence of data about the story’s key disagreement–or even a clear statement that data is unavailable or inconclusive–is a major shortcoming of the story.
The report does not exaggerate the cognitive risks following heart surgery–it uses an estimate of side effects from a New England Journal study.
It also permits those who question the validity of those statistics–given the fact that perhaps one third of surgery patients have cognitive issues before surgery–to make their case.
The reporter interviews two advocates of the device (one independent, one with industry ties) and one surgeon who is unconvinced of its value. It briefly cites two key studies about cognitive impairment after heart surgery.
This sourcing elevates this report into the "satisfactory" rating, but barely.
The article implicitly compares surgery with and without the oxygen monitoring device, and provides a thorough description of how the device functions in surgery.
However, the piece does not write about beating-heart surgery, a method designed partly to make the heart-lung machine, which appears to be responsible for cognitive side effects, unnecessary. This is a significant omission.
The story fails to report whether the brain oxygen monitoring device is available at only a few surgical centers or all of them.
It also fails to report how difficult it would be for patients to request the device for their own surgery.
The article makes clear that the device in question is 10 years old and sometimes used.
There is no evidence the article relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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.