This is another study – of which there have been several notable ones recently – that shows that newer isn’t always better in health care.
As Yale’s Harlan Krumholz said in a key quote in this story, "What’s remarkable is that this procedure got so popular and adopted into widespread use before a study like this was conducted to show us what its value may be."
Overall, the AP story did a good job. It could have been improved by:
The story refers to kidney angioplasty as a "pricey procedure" but offers no ballpark estimates of what that means.
While the story included the important statement from one researcher that "There really was no benefit," the story nonethless never gave any data on how "benefit" was measured. Or what the absolute data were for either treatment group. So how well do medications work? What were the rates of death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure, etc.? The story didn’t tell us.
The story provided absolute numbers of harms in the angioplasty group within the first month after treatment.
The story provided an adequate explanation of the nature of the evidence.
The story provides National Kidney Foundation estimates of the scope of the problem.
3 different independent sources were quoted.
The story was about different treatment options for blocked kidney arteries. And it did an adequate job presenting the data comparing the options.
The story gives an estimate of how widely kidney angioplasty is used.
A kidney foundation spokesman said this report was "the first hint" that medication may produce equal results to angioplasty.
Given that several sources were interviewed, it is unlikely that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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