This is an interesting and informative piece about the utility and the marketing of gastric banding, a type of weight loss surgery. It covered the marketing of this medical device in great detail. Consumers reading this piece would have a much better sense of the recent history of gastric banding and the strong direct-to-consumer marketing push that is happening now. Providing this information enables readers to recognize the market forces at work. And while the story was really less about helping people make a decision about whether this was an appropriate procedure for them to undergo, it would certainly arm a consumer with questions to pursue if they were considering this operation.
Overall, a very well done story.
The story provided several estimates for the cost of gastric banding; it also discussed insurance coverage, i.e. that the procedure was not always covered by insurance.
While the story mentioned weight loss, health improvement, and longer life, it failed to provide quantitative estimates for these.
The story provided quantitative information on the disease reduction obtained with the use of this device in individuals with type II diabetes. Although the story did mention that weight loss is slower with gastric banding than with gastric bypass, it failed to provide quantitative information about the amount or rate of weight loss attained with banding. The story should also have mentioned that long-term followup finds for those whose diabetes resolves following gastric banding, about half re-develop diabetes at 10 years.
The story mentioned weight regain as well as some of the side effects that occur with the use of this device. For a more complete discussion, it should have included information about how frequently these occur.
When discussing the effect of gastric banding on type II diabetes, the story mentioned the research about the use of this device for this population. It mentioned the evidence about safety and effectiveness and where it had been published. As for the impact of the banding procedure on weight, the story neglected to include information on the average weight loss seen but did include several patient anecdotes. However the story was more focused on the marketing strategies for this device rather than the health claims per se.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story included primary quotes from clinicians, industry spokespersons, and individuals who had undergone gastric banding.
The story included a pretty comprehensive comparison between gastric banding and gastric bypass, another type of weight loss surgery. It only mentioned diet and exercise in passing and failed to mention medication that can be used for weight loss.
The story provided a very complete discussion about the various venues at which gastric banding was available.
The story provided a pretty complete history of the use of gastric banding.
Does not 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.
You might also like