This article on catheter ablation, a treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), is marred by three flaws:
Having said that, for the most part the story is well-done: It accurately describes the procedure. It portrays the benefits appropriately and indicates potential harms. It notes the need for longer-term studies to ensure the treatment prevents death and strokes over time.
The errors in the story do not result in misrepresentation, and readers will take away the fundamentally correct message: When drugs fail to treat atrial fibrillation, ablation works far better at reducing symptoms and AF occurence than a second drug regimen.
They may believe incorrectly that the results apply to typical AF patients, who are older.
The nine-month vs. one-year mixup seems forgiveable–as merely sloppy or rushed.
But without the sponsorship disclosure readers miss any hint of the commercial hustle behind the study and research into similar devices generally.
As a matter of fact, that theme would have been nicely enhanced with another detail the story omits: the cost of the device the sponsor sells.
Atrial fibrillation is a common condition that can lead to stroke, other serious cardiac problems, and death. Frequently, drugs fail to treat the condition successfully; the drugs also have cumulative side effects. A better second-line treatment that controls irregular heartbeat could prevent many strokes, improve quality of life–and save lives.
The story does not cite costs of either the surgery or the drug treatment it is compared to. At a time when medical costs are so much in the public mind, stating treatment costs is important.
When a study is sponsored by a device maker, it is all the more important to disclose costs.
The story does a solid job quantifying the difference between the two patient groups in the study, clearly showing the superiority of ablation in reducing symptoms and AF occurence.
But the story makes a blunder: The study reported results for nine months, not one year as the article states. For this reason the story receives an unsatisfactory rating.
The story cites the most significant risks of the surgery: stroke, and damage to the veins or esophagus. It is a bit jarring, however, to learn that the surgery carries a 1 percent risk of stroke only in the last paragraph.
The story is based on a randomized clinical trial; its size, duration and outcomes are adequately described.
The study’s key limitations–its one-year duration and its inability to speak to the surgery’s effect on the endpoints of death or stroke–are duly noted as caveats.
The limitation the reporter misses–that the study group doesn’t represent the typical AF patient–is significant but not serious enough to earn the story an unsatisfactory rating.
The story does not exaggerate the prevelance or severity of atrial fibrillation.
The story quotes three sources–the study’s lead author and two independent cardiologists.
While this is normally adequate, all of the doctors support ablation. It would have been invaluable to speak with a cardiologist who is neutral on the procedure. This interview would likely have surfaced some of the study’s methodological limitations.
More seriously, the story fails to disclose that Johnson & Johnson, maker of a device used in the surgery, sponsored the study. Many researchers have entanglements with the sponsor and other device makers. This is a serious omission.
Like the study, the story compares catheter ablation to the second-line drug therapies used when a primary drug treatment is ineffective.
It’s not clear whether catheter ablation is available only at highly specialized cardiac care centers or at most hospitals. It’s also not clear how widely practiced it is.
The story makes no claims for the novelty of catheter ablation. It would have been useful to know how long it has been in use, however.
The story uses independent sourcing and does not draw from the press 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