This segment on the use of MRI to help assess heart disease risk could have been much improved with just a few additional statements.
The anchor twice provided openings that may have led to overinterpretation of the findings, but the correspondent resisted admirably both times. And to her credit, the reporter did try, at least, to inject some cautious interpretation.
The medical correspondent gets points for mentioning that MRIs are "expensive" and by extension too costly for use in population screening. But even in such a short segment, given the context, it would have been useful to specify.
Costs are usually $2,000 to $3,000.
The segment uses brief data points displayed on the screen to illustrate how common silent heart attacks are and how they elevate the risk of death by 11 times.
Still, we don’t know what percentage of all heart attacks are silent [we are given only a raw number] or what the underlying risk of death is for those who had and didn’t have silent heart attacks.
Even a short segment could have added these numbers, even in the brief screen graphic.
The journal article upon which the story is based explained that there is a recently described problem wherein the contrast dye used in the imaging test causes a lung scarring that is very debilitating. It occurs in some people with kidney disease, and is an important downside mentioned in the journal article but not mentioned in the story.
The story failed to put this new study into any context of other existing ways of assessing risk.
It is also important to note that the study was done in patients scheduled for coronary angiography, not just anyone off the street; by definition, this is a high-risk group.
The correspondent accurately describes "silent" heart attacks as deadly.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the severity or prevalence of the condition.
The researchers in the study in question hold a patent to the machine used in the study. This was never mentioned in the story. An independent source should have been cited – someone who could answer whether there are other ways of determining risk – and what should be done with this information.
The segment failed to put the new approach into the context of other methods of predicting risk.
Nuclear imaging can detect some similar findings. Stress testing and resting echocardiogram are also used.
Moreover, it is not clear that this new information can be used to guide therapy.
The segment makes clear that MRIs have been available for a long time but are now being studied for their ability to reveal previous "silent" heart attacks.
The segment accurately states that MRIs have been around a long time and that this application is novel, not in clinical use and just now under study.
Since no expert is interviewed in the segment, it is impossible to know whether the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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