Cryotherapy is being investigated as an approach for early-stage kidney cancer. What trials are available show that the procedure is effective compared to more invasive options but long-term results are lacking. The procedure offers several advantages over open surgery, such as a shorter operating and recovery time, and more preservation of kidney tissue. These are important potential benefits especially in older patients or those who have compromised kidney function.
This story presents vivid detail of the procedure and describes it in almost terms akin to that of science fiction. However, it provides little in the way of balanced, informative content for the reader. It focuses only on how "cool" the technology is and barely provides anything in the way of educational value. While it is true that cryotherapy is an advance in the treatment of kidney cancer, there are always options and the story should give the reader more nuanced information.
The story presents little in the way of information on the downsides of cryotherapy. The story mentions potential "mishaps" but what does that mean? How often do they occur? How often will the surgeon need to revert to open surgery? What are the long-term risks?
Finally, the story quotes no sources other than the surgeon who developed the technique. The story would have been much improved by including some perspectives from surgeons who do not have something to gain by what is said about the technology. In the end, this story appears to be little more than an advertisement disguised as news.
The story makes no mention of the cost of cryotherapy or how it compares to other available treatments.
The story does not adequately quantify the benefit of cryosurgery, other than in reducing recovery time.
The story mentions potential "mishaps" but what does that mean? How often do they occur? How often will the surgeon need to revert to open surgery? What are the long-term risks?
The story spends a lot of time describing the technology of the procedure but does not explain the evidence to support its use. Have there been well-designed studies showing that it performs as well as conventional surgery?
The story adequately describes the prevalence and seriousness of early-stage kidney cancer. The story mentions that many of these cancers are found by accident, such as on an x-ray when looking for something else. The story could have described how it is unclear what would have happened to these tumors had they not been found this way. That is, some of them may never progress to cause a problem.
The story quotes no sources other than the surgeon who developed the technique. The story would have been much improved by including some perspectives from surgeons who do not have something to gain by what is said about the technology.
Although the story mentions open surgery, it does nothing to describe the pros and cons of the options.
The story makes no mention of how widely available cryotherapy is.
The story is very unclear about the novelty of cryosurgery, perhaps suggesting to some that it is newer than it actually is.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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