This is an unbalanced story on the supposed benefits of the use of a stent to repair an aortic aneurysm. The risk of an untreated aneurysm which the reader is told “can burst, causing severe back pain and often death within minutes” is not contrasted with the risks of having had an aneurysm treated. There was no mention of the potential harms of using a stent. There was also no mention of costs. The only framework for the story is provided by a single source – a local surgeon who performs the procedure. The story needed at least one other independent source. The patient who was profiled is said to be an individual in his 80s and in poor health. The evidence to support the statement that the procedure “saved his life” is unclear. It is also worth noting that most aortic aneurysms are abdominal and screening for them is not only considered ineffective, but the best therapy is unclear.
No mention of costs; article explained that no routine scans are typically done for
the underlying anomaly because Medicare won’t cover chest X-rays for this purpose.
Estimate of death rate from the procedure is presumably for death immediately
following the procedure. No data on the benefit from the treatment (symptom relief, longevity improvement, quality of life
or quality of death)
No mention of harms from the procedure.
Where does the mortality data on the
use of the stent come from?
How many people have these aneurysms?
Is there a range of severity? No discussion of the natural history of these problems.
The only source is a surgeon who does
this procedure; no other independent opinion is included.
Mentions open heart surgery
to fix an aneurysm with a 30-50% mortality rate. Data presented for this procedure, thoracic endoprosthesis, is 1-5% death
rate. However this difference may be explained by a difference in patient populations.
Mentions new device approval by the FDA for use to fix “a bulging artery near the heart”.
Mentions that this device is
similar to that of a heart stent placed in the aorta to repair an aneurysm (i.e. not innovative, but a new ‘model’ and
application).
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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