This story includes an independent source and details about the underlying concept of the new device and its limitations that help readers put the research into the proper perspective. Aside from including more pertinent information, this story did a better job of characterizing the research report as one step in a long process.
Until two treatments are directly compared, it is usually inappropriate to claim that one is superior to the other. This story does a good job of explaining the results of research into this new device without implying that the preliminary trials produced evidence it may be better than existing devices.
The story notes that the cost of the device would be similar to that of existing devices, but that implantation is simpler, which might make those costs lower. It would have been helpful to specify the estimated cost of existing implantable defibrillators.
This story outlines the problems with the electrical lead wires of existing devices that have harmed patients and required re-operations and recalls. It explains that by using wires placed under the skin, instead of through blood vessels into the heart, the new device might reduce the risks associated with implantable defibrillators for certain patients. The story cautions that only about a quarter of patients who currently are given implantable defibrillators might be candidates for the new type of device.
Although the researchers pointed out in their journal article that “the initial experience includes several cases of problems such as lead migration, lead dislodgement, and inappropriate sensing,” the story does not refer to any potential harms.
In the lead, this story appropriately characterizes the new report as a step toward implantable defibrillators that do not have wires attached directly to the hearts of patients. It points out that much of the new data is based on the experiences of about 60 patients who had one of the new devices for a year. The story makes more than one reference to the need for further trials before the developers of the new device would have enough evidence to apply for FDA approval.
The story points out that the new device is intended for use in a subset of patients who are already considered candidates for conventional implantable defibrillators.
The story includes an independent source. It points out that the trials of the new device were paid for by the manufacturer and that the lead researcher founded the company.
The story makes clear that, depending on the results of further trials, the new device could be an incremental improvement on existing implantable defibrillators for certain patients. It also notes that it does not offer the heart pacemaker function of some existing implantable defibrillators.
The story points out that the new type of implantable defibrillator is available in some countries in Europe, but that further trials are needed to produce evidence that could be used to apply for FDA approval in the United States.
The story notes that the device has been under development for several years and requires further research before it can be considered for clinical use.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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