This story allows a single physician to make claims about his method of removing kidney stones. The work is to be published in an upcoming journal article.
It is not at all clear how available this approach to kidney stone treatment is. The story says “After Dr. Portis presents results of his study, he thinks doctors everywhere will want to adopt it. ” But we have no idea how many are using it now, nor is there any independent evidence that anyone else will adopt this approach.
The only mention of cost is this: “Who doesn’t want a far more effective procedure that costs one-third as much?” Cost isn’t specified. Costs of alternatives are not given.
The story lets the physician-researcher say that “his approach has a 95 percent success rate with a single treatment and quicker recovery time. ” But there is no evidence given to substantiate that.
Only a single source is used – the physician who is interviewed. Other kidney stone specialists should have been consulted.
Potential harms are not discussed.
The story felt more like cheerleading than fact-finding.
The only mention of cost is this: “Who doesn’t want a far more effective procedure that costs one-third as much?”
Cost isn’t specified. Costs of alternatives are not given.
The story lets the physician-researcher say that “his approach has a 95 percent success rate with a single treatment and quicker recovery time. ” But there is no evidence given to substantiate that. And there is no comparison with other approaches.
There is no discussion of any potential harm from this approach.
The story references an upcoming journal article. It inaccurately says it is in the journal Urology. It is actually in the Journal of Urology. The story lets the physician-researcher say that “his approach has a 95 percent success rate with a single treatment and quicker recovery time.” But there is no evidence given to substantiate that.
The lead-in says that “Women who’ve had them have told me that childbirth is less painful and yet 1 in 10 of us will suffer the agony of them.” There is no evidence given to support that anecdote, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and give it a satisfactory score here.
Only a single source is used – the physician who is interviewed. Other kidney stone specialists should have been consulted. The story says “After Dr. Portis presents results of his study, he thinks doctors everywhere will want to adopt it. ” But the story gives no independent evidence that anyone else will adopt this approach.
“Smashing stones with sound waves” is briefly mentioned, but written off. No other conventional treatment strategies are discussed.
It is not at all clear how available this approach to kidney stone treatment is. The story says “After Dr. Portis presents results of his study, he thinks doctors everywhere will want to adopt it. ” But we have no idea how many are using it now, nor is there any independent evidence that anyone else will adopt this approach.
The procedure apparently uses existing technologies, so it is not clear how novel this is. Also, since no independent source is interviewed – no other kidney stone specialist – there is no context given to allow the viewer to judge the novelty of the idea – only what the interviewed physician says.
The story includes some of the same claims that appear in a news release – about a single procedure being effective in 95% of patients, about cost estimated to be just one third of conventional treatment strategies. But there is no hard proof that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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