NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

First Biosynthetic Corneas Implanted

Rating

5 Star

First Biosynthetic Corneas Implanted

Our Review Summary

The story could have discussed costs and done a better job quantifying how many people might actually benefit from this treatment. All in all, though, the story was far more complete than the other two.

 

Why This Matters

Blindness is a serious public health concern, especially in developing countries, and any potential advance that would increase the number of corneas would be good news. People in the U.S. who are struggling with vision loss are anxious for treatment progress, too, and a small study like this needs to be properly evaluated and reported. Hope is wonderful. False hope does not benefit anyone.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

One of the few ways this story fell down. Because donor corneas and plastic corneas are already on the market, at least a range of costs for those treatments and assessment of whether this would be a more or less expensive treatment would have been important information to include.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

All the stories reported the results in absolute terms, which emphasizes for readers that the study is very small and that even though most people ultimately had better vision, we are still only talking about 10 people.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story notes that none of the patients "experienced graft rejection or required long term immune suppression — two potential side effects with human donor corneal transplants." It could have discussed what it might mean for these patients if these grafts ultimately fail. Does it prevent them from then undergoing a human corneal transplant, which has a more established record of long term success?

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Between the researcher’s own assessment and the outside commentary, it is made clear that this study is small and preliminary and in need of further research. This is the one of two of the stories reviewed to note that these results were obtained after two years of monitoring these patients. That gives readers both a sense of the significance of their improvements and the difficulty of this type of research. The story could have pointed out some of the specific limitations of the study design, including the fact that the study did not actually compare this type of transplant with any other kind of transplant or therapy.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no disease mongering in this story. There are, however, some suspect numbers about how many people suffer from corneal blindness and how many receive transplants. Global numbers about conditions such as corneal blindness can be tricky, but several studies put the number at closer to 5 million, not 10 million. The declaration that "only a small fraction ever receive transplants," should have been attributed.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story uses one independent voice. As with many stories of this nature, it waits until the very end to bring in the independent voice of reason. Still, because the researcher’s comments in this story are so cautious, Dr. Walter Stark’s comments only help to bolster the sense that more research is necessary to draw any conclusions about benefits of biosynthetic corneas.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story compares the biosynthetic corneas both to human corneas and to plastic corneas. It is the only story of the three to even mention plastic corneas. Other alternatives could have been explored.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

Of the three stories, this one does the best job making it clear how preliminary this study is. The second sentence says that the results are from "the first 10 people in the world treated with the biosynthetic corneas," signaling that much more work needs to be done. To underscore that point, two paragraphs later the first quote in the story, from one of the lead researchers in the study, says "We are still in the prototype stage, but this shows that regenerating a human cornea is possible." This is the best quote in any of the stories.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story states that this is the first time a biosynthetic cornea has been tested on humans. The story establishes that high but does not take a "gee whiz" approach.

Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory

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.