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

Medtronic atrial fibrillation system shines in study

Rating

4 Star

Medtronic atrial fibrillation system shines in study

Our Review Summary

This story reports on results from a preliminary study for a device in development to treat atrial fibrillation.  Although it appears to be intended as a business story, we think shareholders would care about cost and comparisons with existing alternatives as much as patients and consumers should care about these. 

 

Why This Matters

Since the story acknowledged that a competing device was already on the market, it wouldn’t have required much more work to do some comparative analysis – especially if our call for an independent expert’s perspective was heeded.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

 There was no discussion of costs.

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

Satisfactory

 The story did provide insight about the difference in heart attack, stroke and death in the groups taking medication alone or those who had received treatment with this device.  However, since the story did note that there is currently a device on the market, it would have been helpful to readers to provide information about treatment with the other device affects the rate at which these things occur.  A comparison of effectiveness would provide insight as to the relative merit for this new device.

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

Satisfactory

 The story did mention several of the harms associated with the use of this device along with the incidence with which they were observed.

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

Satisfactory

There was adequate discussion of the evidence and that the main limitation of this study was its small size. 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no overt disease-mongering of atrial fibrillation.

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

Not Satisfactory

 There were no independent sources interviewed to discuss the potential of this device to affect outcomes and patient care.  This is a problem.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

 While mentioning that Johnson and Johnson had an ablation device approved for use in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, there was no discussion about how the results obtained with the Medtronic device compared.

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

Satisfactory

 Towards the end, the story mentions that the treatment device discussed is not yet approved for use, though a device made by a different company (Johnson and Johnson) has been used to treat AF for years.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

Towards the end of the story, there was a clear statement that there is another device on the market that has been used for a long time in the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

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

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure of the extent to which this story was influenced by a new release, so we judge this criterion Not Applicable.

Total Score: 6 of 9 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.