You could fill a day’s worth of programming with "Health Minutes" about new devices. Viewers need evidence about harms, benefits, comparative effectiveness. This "minute" didn’t deliver any of that – only one glowing personal anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data.
A story on this topic could have touched on how many artificial ankle implants there are on the market or in development. How does the FDA evaluate all of the claims? And how is a patient to be guided in his/her decision-making?
No discussion of costs – a big issue with these pricey devices.
No data. No study results. Just one personal anecdote.
No discussion of the potential harms of the surgical implantation – or of the failure rate of the device.
One personal anecdote is all the evidence we got. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Not applicable – largely because in a minute, there wasn’t much time devoted to giving any background on ankle arthritis.
No independent sources were interviewed – just one true believer surgeon who uses the device in question. No disclosure of whether he has financial ties to the device manufacturer.
Again, no meaningful comparison with the other ankle implant/artificial ankle joint devices either on the market or in development.
We learn nothing about availability – not even if the device is FDA-approved. Is it experimental? Is it on the market? We weren’t told.
The story says, "unlike most ankle surgery that fuses bone-to-bone causing the joint to be rigid, this implant gives full movement to the ankle joint with less pain." But we’re not given any meaningful comparison with the different devices on the market or in testing in order to show how/if this device in question is truly novel.
Not applicable because we can’t be sure what the story was based on.
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