The story didn’t deliver the numbers and the explanations to help readers evaluate the evidence.
It is not clear from the story what ‘a 70% reduction in heart failure compared with a 35% decline in men’ actually means.
The story went on to mention a ‘dramatic’ reduction in cause of death from any cause. But what does that mean? How big is a ‘dramatic’ reduction?
Heart disease (coronary artery disease) and heart failure are common, age-related conditions. Providing readers with accurate information that they can use in their decision making process about treatments is valuable. This story just didn’t click on all cylinders.
There was no discussion of costs. These things are not cheap.
In this story, the ‘result’ of the combination device in men was described as ‘good’ as compared to women in whom the benefit was described as ‘fantastic’ . What exactly was the ‘result’ the clinician was describing, and then how does ‘good’ compare to ‘fantastic’? Is the difference statistically significant or clinically meaningful?
Similarly – ‘a dramatic reduction in heart failure events’ – what is the nature of these ‘events’ ?
And then lastly – opening with the information that women had ‘a 70% reduction in heart failure compared with a 35% decline in men’ fails to provide the reader with any insight about what was being measured and because only the relative change is presented rather than the absolute difference – readers have no idea about that actual size of the difference.
There was no discussion of potential harms from the use of the device.
Other than providing the name of the trial (MADIT-CRT) and its source of funding (Boston Scientific) the story provided insufficient information to readers to help them evaluate the quality of the evidence.
It is not clear what ‘a 70% reduction in heart failure compared with a 35% decline in men’ actually means. The writer probably meant reduction in heart failure related hospitalizations. But without this information the statement is not able to be interpreted.
The story went on to mention a ‘dramatic’ reduction in cause of death from any cause. While this seems like a potentially good thing – how big is a ‘dramatic’ reduction?
The story ended with disease mongering about the 42 million American women ‘living with heart disease’ in a story about heart failure, which, while it may fall under the rubric of heart disease, is only a subset of the vast 42 million. The story then went on to share that ‘It’ is the ‘leading killer of women’. Why not simply provide heart failure stats, and heart failure stats by gender?
No independent sources were cited or quoted. The story did mention that the study reported on was funded by the manufacturer of the device discussed.
There was no discussion about alternatives.
At the end of the story, it mentioned that what it earlier referred to as ‘a combination pacemaker and defibrillator device’ had had it use expanded by ‘U.S. regulators’ to include mild heart failure.
It seemed clear from the story that the combination device was not new but that its use had recently been expanded.
We’re going to rule this Not Applicable because it’s an odd case.
Different quotes are attributed to the researcher – some from “a statement” and some from a telephone interview.
We can’t be sure how much original reporting was done.
An older press release (June 2010) may have been the source for some of the information presented in this story.
http://bostonscientific.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=932
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