NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Is Lasik surgery safe?

Rating

4 Star

Is Lasik surgery safe?

Our Review Summary

This is a balanced piece on the risks of Lasik vision correction surgery. It was aired on the day an FDA advisory committee was scheduled to hold hearings on the issue.

The segment has several key strengths: 

  • It repeatedly explores the range and type of side effects, the elective nature of the procedure and the alternative treatments for vision correction. This creates the accurate impression that the decision is complex, and that much remains unknown about the risks.  
  • It quotes two medical experts who discuss the importance of knowing the risks and careful patient selection.
  • It makes clear that expectations of side-effect-free perfect vision are at least occasionally unmet–but that it’s unclear how common this is.  
  • It puts the negative outcomes in the context of the more likely positive outcomes.
  • It makes plain the goal of the day’s hearings: to determine whether doctors are screening patients adequately and whether patients should receive clearer warnings about risks.

However, it messes up the quantification of both harms and benefits.

  • It states: "It’s time to find out, for that small 5 percent, which only represents one out of 10,000 patients being dissatisfied, what their complaints are."  Huh?  One out of 10,000 is not 5 percent!!!  So in the end, the viewer is left terribly confused.
  • It never explains how many people who have the procedure are able to avoid wearing glasses afterward – a major reason for many to seek the procedure.

Another shortcoming worth mentioning: the piece was aired on the morning of the hearings. The medical editor was asked whether anything definitive, such as a stricter warning, might come out of the hearings. She said no. Later that day the advisory committee recommended stricter warnings. This is a reminder of that old journalistic principle: Resist the urge to predict the news. 

Overall, a viewer is likely to come away from the segment understanding that the decision to get Lasik requires a well-informed balancing of risks and benefits. They’ll also know to talk to their doctor about whether they are good candidates for the procedure. That’s a pretty good journalistic outcome.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The piece states that the surgery costs $4,000 to $5,000 and is rarely covered by insurance.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The report cites FDA estimates that 95 percent of patients are satisfied with the outcome of Lasik surgery.  But since many people choose the procedure to avoid wearing glasses, the story should have given some indication how many people achieve that goal.

  

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The segment does a good job describing the range of harms, from dry eyes to severe disability. It makes clear that most side effects are on the less serious side, and that the prevalence of minor and serious side effects is not known.  However, it states: "It’s time to find out, for that small 5 percent, which only represents one out of 10,000 patients being dissatisfied, what their complaints are."  Huh?  One out of 10,000 is not 5 percent!!!  So in the end, the viewer is left terribly confused.

 

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The segment draws on FDA data of both voluntary reports and estimates of harm. It does not explain how the 95 percent satisfaction rate is derived. This is a significant omission. 

The story says the FDA says that 95 percent of patients are satisfied. 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 also confuses the evidence when it states: "It’s time to find out, for that small 5 percent, which only represents one out of 10,000 patients being dissatisfied, what their complaints are."  Huh?  One out of 10,000 is not 5 percent!!! 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The piece quotes one patient who represents an outlier–someone who is seriously disabled as a result of the procedure.

Given the rest of the segment’s balanced view of harms, however, the story as a whole is not an example of disease-mongering.  

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The piece quotes a patient who is suffering serious side effects, two physicians who warn about the possible side effects and need for careful patient selection.

It also notes the FDA advisory committe’s forthcoming meeting and cites some FDA data.  

It would have been useful to hear from a researcher in this field.  

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The segment makes clear that the "treatment" alternative is acceptable or better: "And let’s be real," Nancy Snyderman says. "There are worse things in life than glasses."

In a fitting light touch at the end, she compliments the host for the way she looks in glasses.

 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The segment makes clear that Lasik is quite common.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

It’s clear from the story that the procedure has been used a long time.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

Because the story used several sources, it is safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 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.