This story discussed the increased use of gastric banding in individuals who had previously had gastric bypass surgery. While indicating that there was not a lot of data about the effectiveness or longevity of this approach for aiding in weight loss, the story missed the chance to include information about several aspects that should have been covered. By featuring anecdotal information about the short term weight loss of several individuals, it overshadowed the fact that there really is not much known about either the short term or long term risks or whether the improvement in appetite control and weight loss were observed long-term.
The story provided no information about the cost of gastric banding or how the increased time that may be needed for the procedure when conducted after gastric bypass affected the costs.
The story indicated that gastric banding may re-impose limitations on caloric intake that had initially been established with gastric bypass. While it indicated that good long-term data about the utility of banding after bypass was not available, this was overshadowed by the examples of the weight loss seen in a few individuals it detailed.
The story did mention the gastric banding following gastric bypass could be complicated by adhesion of organs to one another resulting from scarring from the first surgery. And while mentioning that this might result in a longer time needed for the surgery, there was no discussion about what ramifications there might be for the patient or how often this scenario was encountered. There was no discussion of other complication rates.
The story mentioned that there were not concrete data on the percentage of individuals who were having a second bariatric procedure for maintaining their weight loss. But instead of following up on the theme of inadequate information on long term efficacy, the story went on to use anecdotes to detail weight loss that had been achieved without reiterating that not much was known about its permanence either. The story didn’t discuss the quality of the evidence or its limitations, of which there are many.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Several clinicians were quoted as part of this story indicating that they were seeing an increased number of individuals seeking to have a second weight loss procedure because they felt gastric bypass was not sufficient to enable them to maintain their weight loss. Beyond this, the story included no expert commenting with concrete information about the risks and benefits associated with this approach to weight control.
The story failed to provide indications about other surgical and medical options available to assist individuals with weight loss and maintenance following gastric bypass.
The story did not give any indication as to whether all bariatric surgeons perform gastric banding after gastric bypass surgery or if it was a select subset.
The story indicated that the particular pattern of bariatric surgeries discussed was a relatively new phenomena and that information about long term weight control was not yet available.
Does not appear to rely 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