Our Review Summary
The piece presents a new invasive technology that is undergoing current research for congestive heart failure. But it did so by profiling a dramatic improvement in one individual patient. The procedure itself is described as requiring a 1.25 inch incision that could be done in an hour and which resulted in the benefit of losing 40 pounds and the ability to walk 4.5 minutes longer on a treadmill in this particular patient. How representative is that outcome? What type of patient is the ideal candidate? Does the story want us to think that all 5 million Americans with congestive heart failure are candidates? Why didn’t the story provide any data from the trials that have been done to give some indication of the quality of the evidence for both benefits and harms. The story of the terrific outcome in the one patient may raise the hopes for some patients who may not live near one of the 29 trial centers or who may result in others entering the trial with unrealistic expectations.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Our rule of thumb: if it’s not too early to talk about how "exciting" and "fascinating" this is, then it’s not too early to project how much it will cost patients.
Not Satisfactory
The only quantification of benefit given was the story of one patient. Anecdotal information is an inadequate presentation of treatment benefits. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Not Satisfactory
There was no mention of any harms that might be associated with the use of this device.
Not Satisfactory
The segment failed to mention where in the clinical trial proccees this device is currently at. (From www.clinicaltrials.gov, it appears that there are phase II and phase III testing currently underway.) In addition, the segment did not provide viewers with information about how success with the device is defined and how often it is successful. It should have been possible to report on the outcomes from the phase I study and from its use outside of the US.
Not Satisfactory
Leading the segment with the claim that 5 million Americans have congestive heart failure could leave the impression that’s the potential market for this device. And nothing in the piece attempted to counter that impression.
The segment did not provide insight about the type of patient for whom this sort of device might be a consideration. It also did not provide a context for understanding the model of the enlarged heart such as whether it is this the case in all individuals with heart failure? or whether it is something that can be reversed?
Lastly – the comment from the anchor "Right. It’s just impossible to continue on with life as this heart gets bigger and bigger and bigger…." is not a helpful framework for reasoned conversation.
Not Satisfactory
The only sources of information for this segment were the clinician and patient. There were no comments from independent clinicians with expertise in heart failure to comment about this device.
Not Satisfactory
There was no discussion about the options currently available for the treatment and management of heart failure, other than brief mention of heart transplant.
Satisfactory
It was clear from the conversation that this device is not FDA approved and is available in the US only as part of an ongoing clinical trial.
Satisfactory
The segment appropriately reported about the novelty of treating heart failure with the Heartnet.
Not Satisfactory
Because this segment was an interview with a doctor and patient, it does not seem to rely on a press release. However – at http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/536804/ , one finds that "Dr. Maybaum and patients will be available for interviews".
No independent source was interviewed.
If CBS can demonstrate that they came up with this segment based on their own enterprise reporting, we’ll be happy to change this score.
Total Score: 2 of 10 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.
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