Is this news? Or an ad for an uNPRoven, costly idea sold to an uninformed public?
This was a very incomplete report on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy for tendonitis (and maybe other problems?). The story was filled with anecdotes but lacked any data. Viewers were not given any sense of the track record for this approach, how often it’s been done, how widespread it is, and what has been found about benefits and harms in trials.
Compare the ABC story with a New York Times story this same week. The Times discussed costs and failure rates – two things the ABC story never touched on.
Instead, the ABC story was cheerleading, using terms like "groundbreaking…great…miracle" to describe the procedure.
It didn’t put the PRP approach in the context of surgical or other nonsurgical options. It simply delivered throwaway lines like this "may keep us from going under the knife." But there are thousands of Americans who pursue other nonsurgical options for the kinds of problems the story describes. People who weigh benefits and harms and costs – something this story didn’t do.
No mention of costs.
The New York Times, in a piece also this week (curious: did they both get the same news release, or did ABC just react to the NYT piece or are we to believe this is mere coincidence?) was able to report that "the procedure costs about $2,000 — compared with $10,000 to $15,000 for surgery."
No evidence on trial data is given. So we have no idea how often it works and with what kind of results. As stated above, the New York Times was able to report that several doctors emphasized that platelet-rich plasma therapy as it stands now appeared ineffective in about 20 to 40 percent of cases, depending on the injury."
The ABC anchor says the therapy is "basically safe." Is that akin a little bit pregnant? No details given on safety.
The New York Times piece cited above reported, "several doctors emphasized that platelet-rich plasma therapy as it stands now appeared ineffective in about 20 to 40 percent of cases, depending on the injury." So that’s $2,000 for a treatment that fails 20-40% of the time. Some people might consider that a harm.
The story had plenty of time to give context, but delivered none. No mention of studies, of how often this has been done, on what’s been reported on benefits and harms. Just anecdotes. In fact, one physician-promoter says in the piece, "The anecdotal stories are that things are getting better a lot more quickly." Network news time should be used up on anecdotes; it should dwell on data. Cuba Gooding, Jr. might say, "SHOW ME THE DATA."
What, exactly, is this treating? The story never explains. It does say it’s not just for professional athletes and then tells viewers about a woman "who injured her elbow while golfing." What was the injury? What, exactly, is being treated? At another point we’re told it’s for shoulder arthritis. Is it for knees, hands, ankles – anything a weekend warrior might experience? Sprains? Tendinitis? Tendon ruptures? This is blatant disease-mongering.
No independent source is interviewed, just true believers in the therapy.
No meaningful comparison was given between this therapy and surgical or other nonsurgical options. Just throwaway lines like "may keep us from going under the knife." Well there are thousands of Americans who pursue other nonsurgical options for the kinds of problems the story describes. People who weigh benefits and harms and costs – something this story didn’t do.
The story gives no indication of how available this procedure is. Is it only available at the two NY facilities mentioned in the segment? We know that’s not the case, but viewers wouldn’t.
The piece calls this a "new remedy" but really doesn’t give us any information on "how new" – how often it’s been done in how many people with what results.
We can’t be sure whether the story relied on a news release. We do find it curious that both the New York Times and ABC did the same story in the same week.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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