This story reported on the results of a recent study which found that the relief of chest pain from heart disease was only transiently better in those who had an angioplasty along with medical therapy as compared to those who only received medical therapy. It indicated that angioplasty is still indicated for the treatment of a heart attack or for those whose symptoms of heart disease was worsening. The story did a good job communicating that medical therapy may not be a simple thing to accomplish and likely would involve many interactions between patient and clinician in order to get it right.
The story included an estimate for the cost of an angioplasty. Although mentioning that it may take many office visits to get medical therapy right, the story should have included an estimated cost for this as well.
The story reported on the percent of individuals in the two treatment groups who reported relief of chest pain and that by 3 years, there was no difference between the groups.
The story mentioned that one of the harms of this report might be that patients may now be given medication without adequate testing to show that angioplasty can be safely delayed. While the story mentioned that currently 1/3 of people receiving an angioplasty may not need it, it failed to mention the harms of angioplasty.
Although the story did not adequately describe the type of study the information came from, it did indicate the number of individuals studied and provided results in terms of absolute benefit. It also indicated that individuals in the study were stable and that this contrasts with those who are having a heart attack or experiencing worsening of symptoms. The story also mentioned where the study had been published so that an interested reader could follow-up on the story if they were interested.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from 5 clinicians, one of whom was identified as one of the study co-authors. Ideally, the story would have clearly identified whether or not the remaining 4 clinicians were involved in the study.
The story provided readers with the results of the study indicating that enhanced relief of chest pain from coronary heart disease was only temporarily better in people who received angioplasty than in those who received optimal medical therapy.
There is no doubt in the story about how widespread both angioplasty and angina medications are in use.
The story captured the novelty of a new study’s observation that the size of the benefit of angioplasty was surprisingly not as large as was thought and that even that was transient. It gave appropriate context on the use of both angioplasty and medications for angina.
The story does not rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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