This was a story reporting on the result of a recently published study examining long term consequences of the method used to harvest leg veins for use in coronary bypass surgery. It contained a clinician quote that helped to provide some balance for comparing the two methods. While it may be true that the less invasive way of harvesting leg veins may result in a greater chance of having a heart attack or dying in the next 3 years, it is also true that the less invasive way of harvesting leg veins results in a faster recovery with less immediate complications than the open procedure.
It would have been useful for the story to have contained some exploration on how the trade-off of benefit now for increased risk later may be factors in decisions made by doctors and patients.
There was no discussion of cost differential for the two methods of harvesting veins; further there was no discussion about how the shortened hospital stay associated with the small incision method affected the cost.
The story compared the relative risks of long term problems; this does not provide readers with any sense about how frequently the problems mentioned occur. Instead, the information should be presented as absolute risk.
The story did not provide quantitative information for assessing how the procedures compare with respect to length of hospital stay and immediate complications. Beyond this, for balance, the story should have included more detail about the short-term benefits of harvesting veins with a smaller incision. These include reductions in wound-related complications, postoperative pain, hospital length of stay, outpatient wound management resources which are not trivial considerations.
While the story included information about the number of patients that were in the study reported on, it neglected to discuss the nature of the study. The story did not include information about the limitations of the evidence in the study – particularly that it was a non-randomized study with wide variation in the rate different procedures were used to harvest veins, there was no standardized patient selection or the means of harvesting and preserving the veins.
The story did not seem to engage in overt disease mongering.
Quotes from a co-author of the study reported and two local cardiovascular surgeons were included as part of this story.
While discussing two methods for harvesting leg veins, it seems curious that it did not also mention the use of mammary arteries as a source of vascular material. Although the study reported on did not cover this, this would have provided readers with a more complete picture of the available options.
The story included estimates of the frequency of harvesting legs veins through a small incision, one a general estimate for the US (70%) and one specific to Ohio State (90%).
This wasn’t a story about a new treatment but rather about new information about two procedures currently in use.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press 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.