Urinary incontinence is a significant health problem that is frequently unrecognized or untreated in many older adults. While the prevalence of incontinence increases with age this does not mean it is part of the normal aging process and many older adults may be unaware that it is a treatable condition. There is good quality evidence that behavior and lifestyle modification, some medications, and/or surgery can improve or resolve urinary incontinence.
In 2001, the FDA approved the InterStim sacral nerve stimulation system for the treatment of urge incontinence. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for urge incontinence appears adequate to support the use of this procedure, however patient selection is important. The diagnosis should be defined as clearly as possible and the procedure limited to patients who have not responded to conservative treatments.
The story refers to a review that found 4 randomized, controlled trials of the device. The story could have provided more detail about the strength of these studies and pointed out the limitations on the current evidence, such as the small sample sizes, limited follow up time and whether these studies were funded by the device manufacturer.
However, the story fell short in quantifying the benefits of treatment. The story provides some quantification of benefits of the device but leaves many questions unanswered. The story states that 80% of the patients experienced at least a 50% improvement in symptoms with the device. Compared to how many with conventional treatment? What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured?
The story mentions the cost of the device.
The story provides some quantification of benefits of the device but leaves many questions unanswered. The story states that 80% of the patients experienced at least a 50% improvement in symptoms with the device. Compared to how many with conventional treatment? What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured?
The story mentions re-operation due to infection and pain, mechanical failures and discomfort as harms of the implanted device.
The story refers to a review that found 4 randomized, controlled trials of the device. The story could have provided more detail about the strength of these studies and pointed out the limitations on the current evidence, such as the small sample sizes, limited follow up time and the fact that many of the studies were industry sponsored.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes multiple experts. The story points out that one of the experts is a researcher on a Medtronic-sponsored trial of the device but does not mention any conflicts for the other experts, leaving the reader questioning the validity of some of their statements.
The story mentions exercises, biofeedback and medications as alternatives to the device, and is careful to point out that these should be considered first-line treatment options before the device is considered. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of the alternatives.
Clearly the device is available, but it is not clear how widely and how many practitioners are trained in implanting the device.
The story accurately represents the novelty of the device.
Because the story quoted many experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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