It’s not a "treatment" until it helps a living human being. Until then, it’s an experiment.
In a story that afforded the topic only 268 words, rather than using 23 of them to say that "the goal is a relatively simple procedure that would last half an hour at most and use largely automated equipment in mobile clinics" – perhaps a cautious independent perspective would have helped remind people that this research wasn’t done on people – only on donor lenses.
Science briefs have their merit, but not when they offer too few details to show what an extremely early stage of research this is in.
Not applicable. Costs not discussed, which is understandable at this early stage of research.
We’ve already told you what the story didn’t: that this was an experiment on 9 human organ donor lenses. But the story also didn’t say if the approach had the intended effect on all 9, half of them, or how many. The story also didn’t capture what the researchers reported:
"The effect of the laser treatment remained visible 1 to 2 weeks after the treatment. Continued observation was not possible due to the gradual optical deterioration of the donor lenses post mortem."
So the leap to knowing how this might work in the bodies of living people is large, despite a headline that stated, "Laser Treatment May Work For Cataracts."
You can’t say much about potential harms when all that’s been reported is an experiment on 9 human organ donor lenses. But the story didn’t even capture what the authors wrote:
"…many questions must be answered and many issues solved before the treatment can be used clinically, such as the effect of the treatment on the scattering properties of the lens and long term effects of the treatment on the lens as well as the rest of the eye."
The story never explained that the experiment was done on just 9 human organ donor lenses.
No independent source was quoted.
No meaningful comparison was (or perhaps could be) given between this experiment in 9 lenses and lens replacement surgery or any other experimental approach to cataracts.
The final line "much more research and development work remains" may help readers understand that this is not a readily available approach.
Not applicable. There aren’t any claims made about novelty, but neither is there any context about any other experimental approaches to cataracts.
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