NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

The Real Skinny: Liposlim During Lunch?

Rating

0 Star

The Real Skinny: Liposlim During Lunch?

Our Review Summary

To be plain and clear: This morning news segment about "lunchtime" liposuction isn’t journalism, it’s publicity for a cosmetic procedure that is being offered by the "source."

  • The producers and host make no effort to show EVIDENCE that the procedure is safe and effective.
  • The surgeon’s assertion that the effects last for a lifetime is unchallenged  by the anchorman and no evidence is given to back up that enthusiastic claim.
  • The statement that persistent pockets of body fat are "treatable" only via liposuction or 14 hours per week in the gym–that’s 2 hours a day–is an exaggeration.  
  • The failure to ask an independent source for an opinion on the benefits and risks of the procedure is bewildering.
  • One cost estimate was given but even the promoting surgeon said it varies across the country.  By how much?  And do some or most insurers cover it? 

Viewers should think about what they saw in this piece. As the anchorman himself put it, the patient was a "healthy, gorgeous" young woman who wanted a "little fat pouch" gone. With health insurance premiums ever rising, would you want people in your insurance pool to have this procedure and to have it covered by insurance, thereby inevitably driving up your premiums?   It would have been journalistic to explore that question.  

The trend continues:  If you want several minutes of free publicity for your health care idea, unchallenged by evidence or by any independent analysis, morning TV is your pot of gold.  

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The segment says the procedure costs about $3,000 "per site."  But even the promoting surgeon said it varies across the country.  Varies by how much?  Also: Is this $3,000 per love handle, or $3,000 for the pair? One hip, or both? One belly, two love handles, two hips…we’re looking at the price of a year of tuition plus room and board at a state university.

Finally, there was no discussion of whether these costs were reimbursed by any or most insurers.  

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

None was given. What’s the track record to back up these enthusiastic claims?

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The only possible side effects mentioned are very minor and minimized by the doctor. Certainly there are others, including infection, bleeding and more serious damage if the doctor makes an error.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

There is none, aside from the apparent self-satisfaction and mutual admiration of the practioner and patient. Also, the surgeon states at the end of the story that the patient will "never have to worry about this [area] again" implying that it’s a permanent solution to this area of fat for her. That is a dubious claim and they don’t present any data to back it up.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

By implying small pouches of fat in fit, healthy people require medical intervention, the segment allows the "medicalization" of what is clearly not a medical problem.

 

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The doctor who performed the operation and the patient who elected to get it are the only people interviewed.  If you want free advertising for your idea, morning TV shows are a good way to get it – unchallenged by any independent expert.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not seriously engage the alternative treatment, which is to continue to be healthy and fit, spend lunch hours taking a brisk walk and spend the money in a way that stimulates the economy more efficiently. 

 

 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not say how many plastic surgeons provide this sort of "less invasive" liposuction, or how to locate one.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

Though the story bills the surgery as something of a novelty, it does nothing to establish this: how often it is done, how long it has been done, how many plastic surgeons do it, etc.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

There is no evidence this story was triggered by a press release, though it certainly appears to be one.

Total Score: 0 of 9 Satisfactory

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.