This story on an implanted pacemaker to control previously uncontrolled high blood pressure called it a “breakthrough” a “game-changer,” and said it has “proven highly effective” and could help millions.
Strip away the hyperbole and the story failed to:
The medical editor who reviewed this piece for us said it was one of the worst he’s reviewed in three years.
There was no discussion of estimated price for this device and treatment. If it’s not too early for the network to say this is "proven highly effective" and a "game-changer," then it’s certainly not to early to discuss costs.
There was no information provided about the extent to which this device might be expected to reduce blood pressure or any information about its impact on cardiovascular events.
One patient mentioned noticing every once in a while that the device was there. The patient who was interviewed said that there were no downsides that he was aware of. However – this does not adequately describe the harms of an implanted medical device, nor possible side effects from stimulating the baroreceptors.
The story gave no data – just saying the device had "proven highly effective." The piece provided no indication about the percentage of individuals whose pressure was reduced with the use of this device; it also did not indicate the extent to which pressure was reduced. Further – merely showing that the device lowers blood pressure is not enough evidence of benefit. Studies would really need to demonstrate thatuse of the device results in a decrease in heart attacks and other cardiovascular events. Just because lowering BP in medication trials does this doesn’t mean that lower BP with the device would do this.
It didn’t exaggerate the seriousness of uncontrolled high blood pressure.
Besides a patient, two doctors involved in the clinical trial (one of whom is the CEO and president of the company manufacturing the device) were interviewed for this segment. There were no independent clinicians or physiologists interviewed to provide background and some perspective about the device reported on.
Medical therapy for the control of hypertension was mentioned during the course of this segment. There was no discussion of other medical devices currently being investigated for the purpose of controlling blood pressure or lifestyle factors that affect blood pressure and cardiovascular risk. There was no discussion of secondary causes of hypertension or interventions that can be used to improve adherence to treatments that have been shown to lower cardiovascular risk.
The broadcast segment did not emphasize that the device is currently being tested in clinical trials and is not available outside of the trials.
The broadcast described the device as a ‘breakthough’. It is premature to use this terminology as the device is still only being studied to determine whether it is effective for this purpose. However – the broadcast was clear that this was a new application of the technology.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. We do know that physicians at only one medical center appeared in the segment.
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