This story reported on a so-called "artificial pancreas," but gave no real evidence of what has been found in clinical trials so far. Indeed, similar research has been going on for 20 years, so the story should have established what is truly new, different and promising – backed up by evidience. Instead, it referred to this as one in a series of "medical miracles" without establishing quantifiable benefit.
The story was not improved by the anchor’s gushing proclamations, such as:
This research may, indeed, lead to an important development in the treatment of diabetes. But this story didn’t deliver any of the evidence to help viewers inform their understanding of the progress in reserach.
There was no discussion of the cost of this device, its implantation, or upkeep. The sensor technology is already available and is quite expensive.
Thin on evidence overall, the story certainly didn’t quanity any benefits of the "artificial pancreas."
No discussion of potential harms of this approach. Patients who wear these still need to do fingersticks periodically. The biggest risk for harm is that the sensor will be inaccurate and will "tell" the pump to administer the wrong and potentially harmful dose of insulin. The margin for error for this technology is very low – one reason why it has taken so long to get FDA approval and bring it to market. The story didn’t explain any of this.
There was absolutely no discussion of the evidence coming out of the trials of this device.
There was no overt disease-mongering about diabetes.
While the segment included interviews with two physiciains, both were investigators of the device. No independent perspective was used.
The story didn’t discuss any of the other methods for automated glucose analysis and pumps. It also didn’t mention that many patients with Type 1 diabetes have excellent control using current technology and have no need for this new and potentially riskier way to treat diabetes. The patients interviewed suggest that having Type 1 dictates all aspects of life and happiness. This is a very dramatic over-statement. Many people with type 1 diabetes have worked hard taking care of their diabetes in their daily lives and they are not "ruled" by the condition.
Beyond the mention that the device was being tested at The City of Hope Hospital in Los Angeles, there was no mention of availability or of other trial sites. The story said, "The device, if approved, could be available in the next five to ten years." What is that based on? Such broad and distant projections are almost useless. If not approved, it won’t be available.
Such devices have been investigated for at least 20 years. This story did not establish what might be truly novel about this approach.
We can’t be sure if the story relied soley 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.