Varicose veins can range from the unsightly to the painful and disabling. In the past, the traditional treatment has been surgery to strip the veins, however newer, less invasive options are becoming more common. Advertising for a variety of laser treatments has proliferated, however not all of these are effective and consumers should be wary of exaggerated claims.
This story does a good job of describing different types of varicose veins, the treatment options available, and the different practitioners who provide the treatments. It appropriately warns the reader about laser treatments that are ineffective. Although the story quotes multiple experts, it isn’t clear if any of them are connected financially to any of the companies developing the treatments.
The story could have been improved by describing the range of costs of treatment, important information given that insurance coverage varies. It could have more thoroughly described the evidence to support the claims and quantified the benefits of treatment. A consumer considering their options would want to know: Are there any studies available? if so, what are the long term results? How much do these procedures reduce pain? What percentage of patients feel better after each procedure? Do the benefits last a long time or only temporarily?
Although the story mentions that insurance coverage varies, the story should have provided some rough estimate of the range of costs of treatment. This is how consumers get shielded from the true cost of elective procedures.
The story doesn’t quantify the benefit of treatment.
Although the story mentions some harms of treatment, it does not indicate how often that occurs and how often the procedure itself doesn’t work.
The story does not describe the strength of the evidence to support the claims made. A consumer considering their options would want to know: Are there any studies available? if so, what are the long term results? How much do these procedures reduce pain? What percentage of patients feel better after each procedure? Do the benefits last a long time or only temporarily?
The story does a good job of describing the difference between painful, disabling varicose veins and others that are only a cosmetic issue. Adding a little more information about how common these conditions are and the potential long term problems if they are not treated would have been useful.
The story quotes multiple experts. The story should have indicated whether any of these sources are independent of the company that developed the technology under discussion.
The story mentions the various options and what they are intended for. The story is also helpful to the reader in describing the various practitioners involved and warning about treatments that are ineffective.
The story adequately represents the availability of the treatments for varicose veins.
The story adequately describes the novelty of the treatments.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story didn’t rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.