Interesting story on local officials debating the evidence on emergency response to cardiac arrest.
Unfortunately, the story didn’t discuss the actual evidence! It provided no data about the magnitude of the benefit that might be obtained with the use of this treatment or about the costs involved. It makes a difference whether investment in this technology will results in 1 out of 100 lives saved or 90 out of 100 lives. It would have been helpful to have some information about the costs involved in other approaches and the benefit that might be obtained with them.
Without providing the actual data, it is not possible to make rationale decisions about the relative merit of the cooling approach.
This is an important public policy issue and we applaud the paper for pursuing it But in this case – as with so many of the stories that we review – discussing the EVIDENCE and the quality of the evidence is essential.
There was no information about the costs for the treatment nor the investment in the infrastructure to support the availability of this treatment. Puzzling given the public policy and city/regional planning aspects of the issue.
Although the experts quoted in the story indicated that survival would be improved with the use of this treatment, there was no indication of how many more individuals might survive or might have less brain damage as a result of cooling.
There was no discussion of harms of treatment. The story ended with a plea to provide people who would otherwise die, with something. However since there was no discussion of outcomes with people who were and were not provided this treatment, it is not possible to know whether there are any harms of receiving this treatment. Survival with brain damage could be increased, which could be considered a harm worse than death in some cases. What do the data show?
The story mentioned that there were two, small studies in 2002 that supported the use of this technology. However the story provided no data on the impact of this treatment on survival or quality of life for survivors. Since the whole argument for investing in this technology depends on the amount of benefit, not providing an estimate of what it might be is a major weakness.
The story provided names and interview material from several clinicians; there was some difference in opinion about the merits for the use of this approach to treatment.
One problem with the reporting was that one clinician who was in favor of the use of this technology was only identified at the very end of the story as having received funding from the company that sells the device in question.
The story listed several alternative infrastructure investments that might contribute to the enhanced survival of individuals who suffer ventricular fibrillation in a non-hospital setting. The story mentioned bystander CPR training programs, defibrillation programs and EMS response as alternative investments to cooling apparatus.
The story would have been much more valuable to readers had it included information about the size of the benefit and the costs involved with each of these as compared to cooling equipment in emergency departments.
The story indicated that availability of this treatment varied around the country.
It’s clear from the story that this is not a new approach.
Because of the numerous sources cited, it’s clear that this story didn’t rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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