First, let’s be clear that this is a review of an Associated Press story as shortened by the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Some of the flaws commented on were not present in the original AP story.
The story was about a 10-year retrospective study of adverse events resulting from adolescent use of insulin pumps conducted by the FDA and published in the May issue of the journal Pediatrics. Insulin pumps are being used more often to deliver insulin to the body through a plastic tube with a small tip that inserts under the skin. The article provides a good description of the pumps, indicating that they are approximately the size of a cell phone and can be worn on a belt or kept in a pocket. Insulin pumps have been primarily used by adults but are now being used more often by adolescents because it allows them to lead more normal lives by eliminating the need for them to give themselves insulin injections in public. The results of adverse events reported by in the FDA study, including 13 deaths and more than 1,500 pump-related injuries over the past decade, were accurately presented. However, no denominator was given so the numbers lose context and meaning. Estimated causes of these adverse events – patient misuse, lack of education, and device malfunction – were also described. A notable omission from the story was the importance of parental supervision as three of the 13 deaths occurred when there was no adult supervision.
The original AP story provided a good overall summary of the health concerns related to insulin pump use among adolescents and the need for for more study to address safety concerns.
But all for the sake of cutting 290 words, the St. Paul Pioneer Press version lost:
Yet it left in a defensive comment from the Medtronic company "which makes the top-selling insulin pump." Why cut out independent perspectives and leave in the Medtronic comment? Is it because it’s a local Twin Cities company? Not a good reason in our estimation.
The original AP story told readers the cost of devices, approximately $6,000, and monthly supplies, approximately $250. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in its shortened version of the AP story, left this information out. So our grade is for the Pioneer Press effort, not the original AP story.
This article fairly communicates the risks and benefits of insulin pump use among adolescents. It does not overstate the main benefit of allowing young people to live more normal lives by eliminating the need for multiple daily insulin injections.
The overall focus of the original research and this article was on the potential harms of insulin pump use by adolescents and the need to address safety concerns. Potential causes of adverse events related to patient use and education and device malfunction were appropriately described. This article could have been improved by including the importance of parental oversight in preventing adverse events, particularly since three of the five deaths occurred at times when there was no parental supervision.
This article includes the key findings and conclusions reported in the Pediatrics study. Some of the study methodology, e.g. the 10-year time period of the investigation, was provided. But there is no mention that this was a retrospective study and what limitations such a study may have. The story mentions 13 deaths and > 1,500 injuries over 10 years, but fails to give the denominator of subjects involved. In addition, the research study also examined the use of analgesia pump use in adolescents which was not covered in the story. Why not?
This article accurately summarizes the prevalence of adverse events related to insulin pump usage in adolescents and presents this information without sensationalism. The brief amount of background information on Type 1 diabetes was useful for context.
The original AP story included the perspective of an independent expert, the American Diabetes Association’s president for medicine and science. It also included input from the editor of a patient newsletter. But the Pioneer Press deleted these perspectives. Instead, the St. Paul story included a quote from the manufacturer of the top-selling insulin pump. Why? Because it’s a local Twin Cities company?
Multiple daily insulin injections, the standard most widely used treatment option for Type I diabetes, is appropriately referenced.
The story establishes availability in its lead sentence when it clearly states that insulin pumps are used by tens of thousands of teenagers worldwide.
This article accurately indicates that insulin pumps have been available and used for many years.
There is no evidence that the AP story relied solely or largely on a news 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