NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Study Finds Stents Effective in Preventing Strokes

Rating

4 Star

Study Finds Stents Effective in Preventing Strokes

Our Review Summary

Immediately – in the second sentence – this story raised doubts about the North American study more forcefully than the LA Times story ever did. And it immediately offered the perspective that these "disparate findings…could help determine whether Medicare expands coverage to cover the stent procedure."  The context was deeper, the balance better in this story.

 

Why This Matters

While we don’t want our health coverage to devolve into "he said, she said" between research camps, good reporting has to present opposing views when reasonably justified by the evidence.    

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although it hints at potential implications of expanded Medicare coverage for stents, this story doesn’t make any explicit reference to costs.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story does a satisfactory job of presenting the major findings using the appropriate statistics. Like the LA Times, however, this story suggests that the disparate findings of the two studies might be explained by the better training and experience of the American CREST surgeons compared with their European counterparts in the ICSS trial. We wish it had spent some time exploring whether the typical patient in the U.S. can expect to receive the kind of expert care offered by the top CREST surgeons. In many cases, the "real-world" outcomes of patients will be less favorable than what the CREST team reported.  

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

As with the LA Times coverage, this story gives us the key essentials regarding what happened to patients in both studies and their risk of major complications such as stroke or heart attack.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story put appropriate emphasis on the fact that these were large, well-conducted studies that are likely to have a big impact on patient care, However, it should have included a caveat about the preliminary nature of the CREST study results, which were presented at a scientific meeting and have not yet been peer reviewed.  

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering here.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

It would have been nice to see some perspective from someone who was in no way affiliated with either of these studies–something which the LA Times, in its defense, did provide in its coverage. Nevertheless, in the hierarchy of sourcing priorities, we felt it was most important that the coverage include some kind of European perspective to counterbalance the American voices advocating for stents. The New York Times managed to get a hold of the lead investigator for the European ICSS trial. He made a pretty good case for why one might think twice before opting for a stent instead of open surgery.  

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

This story doesn’t give enough attention to the question of whether one should intervene at all in asymptomatic patients.  It states that surgery "has been shown to be more effective than medical therapy alone" for preventing strokes, but it is not clear that this is true for asymptomatic patients.  

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story states that surgery has long been considered the best treatment for obstructed carotid arteries, and that Medicare is considering expanding coverage to include stents. Readers can reasonably assume from these statements that both treatments are widely available.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

It’s clear from the story that both of these approaches have been in use for quite some time.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

This story is not based on a press release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory

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.