A very careful report on progress for this vision problem, emphasizing potential harms, the limited subset of people who might benefit, and costs. Nice job.
This is a fresh example of how stories about new technologies can address our criteria of what we think it’s important for consumers to know – and to do so in a reasonably short story.
The story explains that "is seeking Medicare coverage for the surgery and rehab costs, a package that it calls CentraSight. The company wouldn’t estimate total costs but said the device itself costs $15,000."
Very clear on this. The story said: "the FDA said 90 percent of telescope recipients had their vision improve by at least two lines on an eye chart, and three-quarters went from severe to moderate vision impairment. …’We’re not giving people back 20-year-old eyes,’ cautioned ophthalmic surgeon Dr. Kathryn Colby."
The story was very clear about potential harms: "In fact, the FDA took the highly unusual step of requiring that patients and their surgeons sign a detailed "acceptance of risk agreement" before surgery, acknowledging potential side effects — including corneal damage and worsened vision — and the need for lots of testing to determine who’s a candidate. … Concern about damage to the inside lining of the cornea, the eye’s clear front covering that helps focus light, held up FDA approval for several years. In that study, 10 eyes had serious corneal swelling, five that required corneal transplants. FDA’s Eydelman said the company proposed candidate restrictions to minimize that risk, and will study how an additional 770 recipients fare after sales begin."
Adequate explanation of the study.
No disease-mongering. In fact, the story is quite clear that "it’s only for a subset of the nearly 2 million Americans with advanced macular degeneration…Those 75 and older, with a certain degree of vision loss, who also need a cataract removed."
No truly independent source was quoted, as quotes only came from an FDA opthalmic device chief and from one of the researchers.
The story let an FDA spokesman put the development in perspective: "There’s little to help such advanced patients today aside from difficult-to-use handheld or glasses-mounted telescopes, while the new implanted telescope — smaller than a pea — can improve quality of life for the right candidate, said Dr. Malvina Eydelman, FDA’s ophthalmic devices chief."
The focus of the story is new FDA approval.
The story said it was "first-of-its-kind technology" for a very limited subset of people.
It’s clear that the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
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