This is a heartwarming story about how a medical device changed a life. The device is a cochlear implant and the life is Ethan Priddy’s, a young man who slowly lost most of his hearing by the age of 14, and then "blossomed" when he regained his hearing after receiving a cochlear implant a few years later. Ethan’s story inspires his hard-of-hearing high school teacher to follow suit—and no doubt will stir others to action as well. But the story doesn’t tell us much about the scientific evidence: How good is the research on cochlear implants? Who benefits from the operation, how often, and how much? What are all of the potential risks? Is there anything else, other than surgery, which might help? Without knowing some of these answers, readers could make inaccurate assumptions about this treatment.
The story cites a physician who says the cost of the device and surgery is about $60,000, and that it is covered by most insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The story does a nice job of describing how the world might sound and come alive after a cochlear implant operation, but it lacks any quantitative estimate of benefit. Who benefits, how often, and how much?
The story says the harms of surgery are few—mainly the dashed hopes of those it doesn’t help and the chance that some people may need a reoperation if the first implant stops working. It’s not completely clear that if the surgery fails, a partially deaf person is likely to be permanently deaf. Can it cause infections or facial paralysis or affect a person’s taste? Yes, it can—but readers will have to do their own research to find out.
The story fails to describe the quality of the evidence to support cochlear implant surgery. In whom has it been tested? In what sorts of studies? How often does it fail to help and why? Is the person featured in the news story—deaf 17-year-old Ethan Priddy–warranted in his hope that surgery might restore his hearing?
The story describes a real problem—deafness–without overselling or exaggerating its importance.
The story cites several sources: a patient; the patient’s mother, teacher, and physician; and a commercial website. The story should have included a trusted independent source with expertise on the subject who had no personal or economic interest in this patient or his treatment.
The story mentions no other treatment options. Is there anything short of surgery that might help?
The story fails to explain whether cochlear implants are an FDA-approved device or widely available, or if trained personnel are widely available who can identify appropriate patients for the devices and surgically implant them.
The article doesn’t explain whether this is a new treatment, or provide enough context for a reader to accurately tease out its track record.
The story does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.