This story reports on a study that found clinically significant improvements in the quality of life of patients who had endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic sinusitis. Although the story did a nice job of explaining the methods of the study, it would have been helpful for the reader to have more information on what improvements in quality of life really mean for someone with chronic sinusitis. This story could also have been improved by mentioning potential harms and costs of surgery.
Declaring that a treatment can result in a clinically significant improvement on your quality of life sounds good, but more clarity about what these improvements really mean (e.g., better ability to breathe through the nose, improves sleep, etc.) would make the results more meaningful.
Although the study authors did not report adverse effects of endoscopic sinus surgery, the news story should have mentioned that complications can include bleeding, bruising, swelling and infection. Rare cases of vision problems, spinal fluid leaks and meningitis have also been reported. If you don’t report harms and you don’t report costs, you’re not telling a very complete story.
We think the story should have included even a brief line about how observational studies, like this one, are not considered the highest quality of evidence. That, and the failure to define what "clinically significant improvement" really means results in an unsatisfactory score on this criterion.
This story provides data showing how many people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.
Although the story mentions that medical therapy can be an effective alternative to surgery, more information on the specific medications, including nasal steroids, oral decongestants and antihistamines, would have helped readers.
The story explains that endoscopic sinus surgery has been used for a long time and the reader can infer that it’s been in widespread use.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release, so we grade this criterion Not Applicable.
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.
You might also like