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.