Strong points about this story: it emphasized that research is far from conclusive in the lede. It established the controversies throughout.
Weaker points: It never evaluated the evidence in any detail, nor did it give any sense of the scope of the supposed benefits seen in the research so far. Costs also not discussed – and they can be considerable and may not be covered by insurance.
Is this another new hyped orthopedic technology/approach that is like a high-speed train leaving the station before enough evidence is in hand to support it?
No discussion of costs – an unfortunate oversight. Some estimates range as high as $2,000 and it’s not always covered by insurance. That makes cost a really big issue.
The story didn’t quantify any of the benefits from the studies it mentioned, so readers don’t get any sense of the scope of the potential benefits from the research that has been done.
The story should have explained that the safety of the procedure has not been established, and that potential harms include minor risks of infection, misapplication, and failure.
One good thing about the story is that it mentions numerous studies. But none of the studies is evaluated for the quality of the evidence.
Three experts were quoted. We wish the story would have included an interview with an orthopedist who has chosen not to use it.
We’re going to judge this satisfactory because the story included an important point that the procedure is being used differently around the globe – making research comparisons difficult – because it’s almost like comparing different procedures. The frequency of applications – and the fact that calcium is sometimes added – makes comparisons difficult. This was an important point for the story to make. Our take on it is: Are trains leaving the station down several tracks before anyone ever truly establishes benefit for any of them?
The expanding use and availability of this approach is clear in the story.
The promotion of the procedure over several years’ time is clear in the story.
It clearly did not rely solely on 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