This brief segment reports on an FDA advisory committee recommendation that patients should receive clearer warnings about the side effects of Lasik vision correction surgery.
It sketches the scope of the problem and the risks.
But the segment falls short of best practices in several important ways:
A viewer of this story is likely to come away frightened of the surgery and uncertain about what to do. That is not a good outcome.
The segment fails to mention the price of Lasik surgery, which is considerable–$4,000 and up. The omission is particularly unfortunate because the story is essentially about benefits vs. risks of a voluntary surgery.
The report cites the estimate of a 95 percent patient satisfaction rate. The source for this is not given. The reason why many people get this procedure is to be able to stop wearing glasses. The story should have told viewers what proportion achieve that goal.
The report focuses largely on the potential harms.
But the segment fails to describe which of these side effects is permanent, and what proportion are disabling. That figure is far less than the 5 percent who report being unsatisfied with the results. Many of these are dissatisfied because their vision is short of 20/20 or because they still need to wear glasses.
This is a key omission which results in an exaggerated sense of visual disability.
The segment is based on an FDA advisory committee’s recommendation that patients should receive better warnings about Lasik. While the action itself is not evidence, the committee’s recommendation is based on an assessment of evidence.
The report cites "studies" that show a 95 percent patient satisfaction rating. This is not enough detail to help a viewer determine the quality of this evidence. There is also no source provided for that figure, or any sense for how it was derived.
The story states: "the FDA has received only 140 complaints from 1998 to 2006. But even if only 5 percent of patients are dissatisfied, with 700,000 Americans getting Lasik every year, it could mean thousands of unhappy patients. " Wait a minute: 140 out of 700,000 is not 5 percent!!!
The piece does not exaggerate the risks of surgery. At the same time it is not clear where the "5%" complication rate comes from. Certainly NOT from the number of complaints that the FDA has reported which is well under the 5% level. The report would be stronger if this information was included.
The segment quotes one doctor who is an advocate of the procedure and one who is absolutely opposed. But the public would be better served by hearing from one or more dispassionate, knowledgeable sources who can thoughtfully compare risks vs. benefits, provide more detail about the side effects, etc.
The story fails to emphasize that this surgery is elective, and that contact lenses and glasses correct vision with virtually no risk of side effects.
The segment makes clear that Lasik eye surgery is widely available.
It’s clear from the story that this procedure has been around for years and is in widespread use.
Because two different physician sources were quoted – one advocating the procedure and one opposing – we assume it did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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