Readers are told that further trials are needed, but while key potential benefits of the new type of device are outlined, the story does not mention problems that the researchers encountered in these early trials. The most important missing element in this story is comment from a source who does not have financial or other ties to the research or device manufacturer.
While it would have been helpful to name a dollar figure, the story did say that the new device costs roughly the same as existing implantable defibrillators. However, the story also includes claims that associated costs will be lower and complications fewer than with conventional devices, even though these claims have yet to be tested.
The story says that it is hoped the new device may be as effective as existing devices while potentially reducing the difficulty, risks and costs of implantation.
The story mentions some harms, but only in quotes from the device developer that tend to minimize the risks and complications. The journal article summarizing the trials of the new device stated that “the initial experience includes several cases of problems such as lead migration, lead dislodgement, and inappropriate sensing.” These harms were not mentioned in the story.
Although this story does point out at the end that “a larger study will be needed to prove that the device is as good as conventional implantable defibrillators,” the lead paragraph states that the techniques used by the new device “may be safer, and just as effective” as the conventional technique, implying a direct comparison that has not yet been performed.
The story does note that the journal article about the device is based on two “small” studies and that “long-term use was tested in 61 volunteers.”
The story presents the new device as a potential improvement on existing implantable defibrillators that would be used for the same sort of patients who are already considered candidates for treatment with conventional devices.
However, one quote from the doctor who developed the new device implies that it may be appropriate for at least 200,000 Americans each year. This figure appears to be higher than those quoted by other sources.
The story did point out that the trials of the new device were paid for by the company developing it and that the lead researcher founded the company. However, the story does not include any comments from independent sources.
It is clear in the story that the new device is intended as an improvement on existing implantable defibrillators. However, the story does not mention that the new device would not be appropriate for many patients who currently receive conventional implantable defibrillators.
The story points out that this new device is available in
The story makes clear that this new device is intended to be an incremental improvement on current devices and that it has been under development for several years.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.