This news report on a study showing that compression stockings don’t reduce stroke patients’ risk of blood clots is cleanly done. The findings are of high quality, the results clearly explained, and two independent sources are used to provide context.
The story could have been made stronger in three ways:
At a time when health care reformers are looking closely at costs and benefits of various treatments, health journalists can play an important role by regularly reporting on price.
The story does not report the price of compression stockings [which range from $20 to $75 per pair through online retailers].
This is a surprising omission. Because in the UK these stockings are so commonly used, the costs of treatment for the population are significant. Even in the US where use is less common, the costs are meaningful.
Further, there are costs associated with treatment of skin ulcers and sores which the stockings cause. These should have been mentioned as well.
The story adequately describes the study population, size and methodology, and clearly states the key finding–that use of the stockings did not reduce risk of blood clots.
It also mentions the important secondary finding, that use of the stockings significantly increased risk of skin problems.
The story reports on the harms of stroke patients using compression hose, which include skin problems and blisters.
The story is based on a randomized clinical trial done with a large population in multiple centers.
The evaluators–who tested the patients for the presence of clots–were blinded, making this a very strong study design. The story could have mentioned this.
The story correctly treats the findings as credible.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
Having said that, the reporter could have been more diligent about keeping the risk of using the stockings in perspective, particuarly for a U.S. audience. The recommended practice in the U.S. (per medical guidelines) is to use anticoagulants to prevent blood clots in sick hospitalized patients, with stockings as a primary treatment only for those who cannot tolerate the drugs and in some other subgroups.
This study is more likely to have impact on practice in the UK, where compression stockings are more commonly used.
Additionally, the reader should be cautious in applying the findings among hospitalized stroke patients to patients hospitalized for other reasons.
The story quotes one of the study’s authors and two independent medical experts, one of whom represents the American Heart Association. This constitutes adequate sourcing.
Since the study showed that compression stockings do not reduce risk of blood clots in stroke patients, the news story should have reported on the treatments that do.
Anti-clotting drugs are mentioned briefly but their benefits and risks were not explained sufficiently.
The story makes clear that compression stockings are widely available to stroke patients.
Compression stockings are widely used for stroke patients, particularly in the UK. No claim is made for their novelty.
There does not appear to be a press release linked to this report.
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