Open heart valve replacement is a major procedure, involving risks and a long recovery period. To be able to do a minimally invasive valve replacement would represent a major improvement for the patient but would need to be demonstrated as effective and safe as the open procedure. At Columbia, a clinical trial of minimally-invasive valve replacement is ongoing but results have not been released or published. As a result, many questions remain about the procedure.
However, this story makes it sound as if this new procedure is a fait-accompli. Referring to it as "groundbreaking" and "the biggest thing since the heart transplant" imply that all patients who are candidates for this procedure should run out and get it.
This story provides little in the way of real information to patients or family members who would be seriously considering valve replacement. It quotes no sources other than doctors at Columbia who have an interest in how this procedure is evaluated. The story also does little to provide information on the availability of the procedure, the evidence to support its use, the costs and potential harms.
The story appropriately describes the procedure as novel, but otherwise, this rather lengthy story falls short on all other criteria.
The story does not mention the costs of the procedure.
The story does not quantify the benefits of the new procedure.
The story does not mention any harms of the procedure.
The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence to support the new procedure.
The story does explain that the procedure is now being studied only in people with aortic stenosis. The story speculates a lot on how this procedure could be extended to other patients, but does not really provide any justification for this other than it hasn’t been studied.
The story quotes two experts but they are both from the same institution. The story should have quoted more experts who can provide more perspective.
The story mentions open heart surgery but does not discuss the pros and cons of the less invasive procedure or mention any other treatment options.
The story mentions that the procedure would be hard to get outside of a trial. The story should have done more to explain the limited availability of the procedure at this time rather than focus on how widely it could be used in the future.
Clearly the procedure is new.
There is no way to know if the story relies on a press release as the sole source of information.
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