No more mouth to mouth
Reviewed By
Rating
No more mouth to mouth
Our Review Summary
This television segment about new American Heart Association guidelines recommending compression-only CPR for observed adult cardiac arrest explains the new recommendations plainly. It also provides the essential caveats–which populations and circumstances for which the compression-only technique should not be used.
Ways the report could have been improved:
- It could have clarified that chest-only is recommended for most uses–but that people adequately trained and confident with traditional CPR should use that technique
- It could have indicated that the technique has been recommended as an option for three years, and has been considered for more than a decade.
- It could have reported how low the survival rate is for adults with observed cardiac arrest–not to discourage the attempt, but so people know that survival is not a very common outcome regardless.
- It could have explained that the evidence came from observational studies (for understandable reasons), not from randomized clinical trials (the gold standard).
This segment also illustrates an important point about uses of different journalistic media. By demonstrating that the news anchor is quickly able to apply the technique, the segment makes clear both how it’s done and how easy it is to do.
Producers should note that while television makes some kinds of health reporting more difficult–stories that require interpretation of statistics, for example–its strengths should be taken advantage of whenever possible.
A final related point: A broadcast television health news report should include a note that more information is available on a related website. This was a missed opportunity in this segment.
Criteria
Not Applicable
Cost is not associated with this treatment.
Not Satisfactory
The segment fails to report the percentage of the targeted population that survives witnessed sudden cardiac arrest with either of the methods of CPR.
In none of the studies, using various outcome measures, does survival exceed 20 percent. Viewers should know this.
Satisfactory
The American Heart Assocation recommendations and the Circulation report provide contraindications for compression-only CPR, which the segment properly notes.
The report and recommendations cite no other risks of compression-only CPR. The published study cites the possibility that some unidentified subgroup of patients may benefit from traditional CPR, but says no research has demonstrated this.
Rib fractures are a potential harm, and the story could have mentioned this. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Satisfactory
The segment does nothing to exaggerate the frequency or severity of sudden cardiac arrest.
Not Satisfactory
The medical correspondent cites no sources aside from the AHA recommendations. At least one independent expert should have been consulted.
Satisfactory
The segment makes clear that the two treatment options for observed adult cardiac arrest are conventional CPR and compression-only CPR.
Satisfactory
Hands-only CPR is implictly available anywhere.
Satisfactory
By mentioning that previous research has found the technique as effective as traditional CPR, the segment implies it is not novel. This meets the minimum standards for a satisfactory rating for this criterion.
The story would have been stronger, however, if it had mentioned that the most recent guidelines indicated compression-only CPR is an acceptable option, and that some medical experts have been urging this switch in recommendations for over a decade.
Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Not Applicable
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No expert is interviewed. And no direct reference was made to the research published in the AHA journal Circulation. So the story may have relied largely on a news release. Or it may not. We can’t judge.
Total Score: 5 of 8 Satisfactory
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.