As we noted in our blog post about this story, we’ve been down this path before with journalistic enthusiasm for early announcements about an artificial heart device. We acknowledge that this was a "Global Business" story, not something that appeared in the Times’ health or science section. But what difference does that make? We found it on the web just as any surfer might. And should the standards for business reporting on medical devices be any different than they are for health/medical/science reporting?
So much can go wrong in the 18 months or so before human testing begins. And so much can go wrong even once that human testing begins. Only one line addressed whether "the enterprise will succeed." But there was no questioning of the company’s claims "that it has the technology to make the implantation of it a standard surgical procedure." Will the New York Times report as fervently about pitfalls along the way if they occur as they did about this preclinical and arguably premature news coverage?
The story explains that the company "estimates its device will cost $176,000 to $226,000. When all expenses are considered, including hospital and surgical expenses, it says it will cost just over $315,000, about the same as a transplant."
No data, no evidence of any kind provided.
No discussion of potential harms – something that must be discussed with any artificial heart device.
There was no evaluation of the evidence on this device so far. And with company projections that human testing is more than a year from beginning, the thin evidence base should have been part of the story.
The story concludes:
The broad "heart disease as leading cause of death" is not directly applicable to the target population for an artificial heart. One woman’s single vessel coronary artery disease – which qualifies as heart disease – is not another person’s end-stage heart failure. So even with the qualifying followup comments from the company exec, the story let him get away with a disease-mongering premise to start with.
Besides quotes from the company executive, there was only one quote from an independent expert. But since he was not commenting on any evidence or track record for the French heart – or even any comment on its concept or design – we rule this unsatisfactory. No independent expert was quoted on the real "heart of the story."
Barely satisfactory. No real comparison was made, but at least other devices that are approved or in development were noted.
It’s clear from the story that human testing is far off: "The company hopes to start human testing in France by the end of next year."
Insufficient explanation of what sets this device apart from others. Only this: "instead of picking up from older models of artificial hearts built on animal research, the developers of the new device had sought to use the tools of the digital revolution, namely computer-assisted design, hemodynamic modeling, regulation algorithms and simulations." But what does that mean about its novelty? No explanation or details given.
Because of the background given about other devices approved or in development, and because of the quote from one surgeon who uses a competing device, we think it’s unlikely that the story relied soley on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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