This story reported on the results of a recent study comparing two ways of performing cardiac bypass surgery. It did a good job of providing readers with the insight that avoiding use of a heart-lung machine did not appear to provide either short or long term benefit and that at least for the population studied, long term outcomes were not as good for those who had off-pump procedures. In addition, the story accurately reported there were no signs of mental decline in those on the machines – a worry that fueled interest in the so-called “off-pump” procedures. The story included a cautionary suggestion from an editorial writer who felt that the results of the study would not affect the surgical choice of surgeons who do a lot of these procedures.
Overall, the story was well done.
The story did not mention how the cost per patient compared for the two procedures, though the journal article indicated that at least within the first 30 days after the operation, costs were similar.
The story used absolute risk and compared the relevant outcomes in the two groups studied.
The story would have been strengthened if it had included some discussion about how individuals who did not undergo either treatment could be expected to compare with those who chose these active treatments.
Data on harms such as heart attack, need for additional revascularization procedures, strokes and cognitive impairment and death were included in this story.
The story detailed that the study reported on had been a randomized clinical trial involving 2,203 individuals and that the results might not be generalizable to other groups such as women, the elderly or those with other illnesses.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story did provide some interesting statistics. For example, it stated that cardiac bypass is the most common surgery in the world with 235,00 Americans undergoing the procedure each year but failed to reference where this information came from.
The story included a perspective from the writer of an editorial that accompanied the journal article.
This was a story about a study comparing on- and off-pump cardiac bypass surgery. It reported on the comparative use of these two options.
It might have been helpful to provide readers with perhaps a bit broader perspective that cardiac bypass is often not the only treatment choice available for dealing with coronary artery disease; the roles for medical therapy and percutaneous procedures in the treatment of heart disease could have been mentioned.
This story was about comparing outcomes for on- and off- pump cardiac bypass surgery. It stated that 1 in 5 bypasses are done off-pump. It also mentioned that ‘Patients are sometimes offered a choice of methods’.
The story included relevant information about the use of both procedures in current clinical practice.
There’s no evidence that the story relied on 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.
You might also like