This story provides a good balance of information on a new treatment option for chronic sinusitis, and there is corroboration with otolaryngologists not affiliated with the makers of the balloon device who are able to provide perspective on the procedure. The story clearly notes this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinusitis and describes how these are different. The story explains that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody, and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and inflamed tissue are removed to open the sinus passages. More information is needed on the safety and efficacy of balloon sinuplasty, and no one knows if this surgery works as well as traditional surgery for chronic sinusitis.
The story mentions other options for treating chronic sinusitis, including medication and sinus surgery, which is described as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of side effects with traditional surgery would be useful.
While there is not much quantitative evidence available on the new procedure, the story stresses the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. There is adequate description of this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. There is a caveat that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence: a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to undergo further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve their chronic sinusitis? The story explains that general anesthesia is still needed for the balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks and additional costs.
There is no mention of the cost of this newer procedure. This is important information if the surgery is not a permanent fix for chronic sinusitis. A cost comparison of the newer sinuplasty, which may require repeated operations, sinus medications and traditional surgery is needed.
No mention of the cost of treatment. This is important if the surgery is not a permanent fix for acute sinusitis. Repeated operations and continued medications need to be compared to cost for traditional surgery.
No quantitative estimate of the benefits of the new procedure. There was a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to have further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve sinusitits? The story mentions that a larger, randomized trial is underway to better understand the risks and benefits of sinuplasty compared to medication and traditional sinus surgery.
Mentions that more information is needed and no one knows if balloon sinuplasty works as well as the more traditional surgical option for chronic sinusitis. Mentions that general anesthesia is still needed for balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks.
There isn’t much evidence for the story to report. The story did stress the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. Story describes this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. Mentions that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence.
No evidence of disease mongering. The story mentions that this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinunitis and describes how these are different.
Good balance of information on treatment options with input from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new procedure. They mention that further study is needed. There is a note that one of the physicans studying the new sinuplasty has no financial ties to Acclarent, maker of the balloon devices used in this type of sinuplasty.
Mentions that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and tissue are removed. There is mention of other options including medication and the more traditional surgery, which is decribed as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of this and other side effects of traditional surgery would be useful.
The story is clear that the FDA approved the device but that it still needs to undergo further study via randomized controlled trials.
Story mentions that this is a new procedure only offerred by 100 doctors.
This story is a blananced presentation of sinuplasty and the information here does not appear to be from a press release. The are quotes from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new sinuplasty procedure.
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.
You might also like