This story reports on a new implantable device, the X-Stop prosthesis, that was recently FDA approved for people with spinal stenosis. The story does mention surgery and steroid injections as the alternatives, but fails to mention other conservative treatments, including physical therapy, weight loss, or oral anti-inflammatory medication. The representation of the prevalence and seriousness of spinal stenosis is also questionable. Although approximately 500,000 Americans over age 50 may be experiencing symptoms, it is not clear that they have the formal diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Although there is mention of a trial, there is no description of the study design or duration of follow-up, an important consideration in chronic relapsing conditions like back pain. In fact, this was a single study with a relatively small sample size in which one or more authors received sponsorship from the device manufacturer. More importantly, however, was the use of a questionable control group. The control group in this study was comprised of a mixture of non-operative treatments, including bed rest, lumbar supports, and injections (of variable amounts). Also, no direct comparison was made between the device and laminectomy (the appropriate control group). All of these factors limit the reader’s ability to evaluate the evidence behind the device. Furthermore, no quantitative estimates of benefit are provided and the story downplays the harms of the device. The story should have mentioned that in the study, 17% of the patients in the device group experienced some adverse event and 10% required some sort of re-operation. Although the story mentions the cost of the device, we have no other costs to compare it to. Finally, only a single source is quoted and we can’t be sure of his potential conflicts of interest. The reader should expect the journalist to assess the quality and strength of the evidence supporting a new device. Highlighting a single success story and a single surgeon’s enthusiasm may obscure the truth about the nature of the evidence. It may be that this ‘bullet’ is indeed an important innovation, but the reader is not provided with enough balanced information to come to that conclusion.
Although the story mentions the cost of the device, it does not mention comparison costs of other approaches. So we are not given the context needed to evaluate this element of the story.
No quantitative estimates of benefit are provided.
The author downplays the harms of the device. In the study, 17% of the patients in the device group experienced some adverse event; 6% required some sort of re-operation.
Although there is mention of a trial, there is no description of the study design or duration of follow-up, which is critical for chronic relapsing conditions like back pain. This was a single study with a relatively small sample size. More importantly, however, was the use of a questionable control group. The control group was comprised of a mixture of non-operative treatments, including bed rest, lumbar supports, and injections (of variable amounts). Also, no direct comparison was made between the device and laminectomy (the appropriate comparison group). All of these factors limit the reader’s ability to evaluate the efficacy of the device.
The representation of the prevalence and seriousness of spinal stenosis is questionable. Although 500,000 Americans over age 50 may be experiencing symptoms, it is not clear that they all have the formal diagnosis of spinal stenosis.
Only a single source is quoted and we can’t be sure of any potential conflicts of interest.
The story mentions surgery and steroid injections as the alternatives, but does not mention more conservative therapy like weight loss, physical therapy or oral anti-inflammatory drugs. This makes it an incomplete and imbalanced discussion.
It is clear that the FDA recently approved the device.
The author clearly states that this is a new technology.
We don’t know whether the author relied on a press release or not.
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