This story reports on a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that cardiac resynchronization therapy is useful for preventing heart failure events in people with mild symptoms. However, the piece profiles only one satisfied study participant, instead of presenting a more accurate clinical picture of who may benefit from the therapy and to what extent. Including commentary from independent experts, as well as information on costs and the potential harms of the treatment would have also strengthened the story.
This story did not include any discussion of costs.
This story states that cardiac resynchronization therapy resulted in a 41% lower risk of heart failure-related events; however, also presenting the results in terms of absolute risk reduction would have been helpful.
The story does not discuss any of the potential harms of this treatment. For example, one patient who received the cardiac resynchronization device died from a pulmonary embolus.
The story briefly describes the methods of the New England Journal Medicine study; however, a more detailed discussion of the patient inclusion criteria would have been useful. Furthermore, one of the co-authors of the study is quoted as saying the group who used cardiac resynchronization therapy will not have the same mortality as those who use just defibrillators; however, the trial results do not support this statement. In fact, the mortality rate was slightly higher in the CRT group (3.3% vs. 2.5%).
By profiling only one patient who is now “100 percent better” after cardiac resynchronization therapy, this story overhyped the treatment without referencing the evidence.
This story does not provide comments from any independent sources. Additionally, it fails to point out that the study was funded by Boston Scientific, the manufacturer of the cardiac resynchronization device used in the trial.
This story indicates that cardiac resynchronization is an adjuvant therapy to a defibrillator and also mentions that medications can be used to treat people with symptoms of heart failure. However, the story comes up short in describing the alternatives, particularly when ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, diuretics, and salt reduction, are probably more important as a whole compared to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
The availability of cardiac resynchronization therapy is not in question.
The story indicates that cardiac resynchronization has been available to patients with moderate to severe heart failure, whereas this study evaluated its utility for preventing heart failure in people who have only mild symptoms.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release.
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.