Tempting though it may be to focus on patient anecdotes to attract interest in a story, individual experiences are no substitute for a thorough discussion of the evidence.
No mention of costs in this story.
We learn quite a bit about the benefits that Mr. Carbine experienced from his operation, but what happened to the 2499 other participants in the study? This story is inexplicably silent on that question.
Both of the procedures discussed carry a substantial risk of harm. But none was mentioned in this story.
The story tells us that stenting was compared to open surgery in a clinical trial involving 2500 patients. But the story left out some important details, such as what outcomes the researchers reported. The only outcome that seemed to matter in this story was that of Thomas Carbine, the retired "Bloomingdale man" in the headline. What happened to the other 2,499 people?
There was no overt disease-mongering in this study.
The only expert source in this story was a principal investigator in the study being discussed. No independent source was quoted.
The story says that the study being discussed included patients with no symptoms of an imminent stroke. There is debate in the medical literature as to whether these patients are appropriate candidates for any surgical intervention. However, the study didn’t raise this issue.
The story states that one of the surgeons quoted in the story has been inserting carotid artery stents since 1995. Since this is the newer of the two techniques discussed, readers can reasonably assume that both procedures are widely available.
It is clear that neither of the procedures discussed in this story is new.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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