Strong points:
The independent expert’s perspective: “I wouldn’t send a middle-age obese man for surgery as their first option. I would say let’s lose the weight; lets use CPAP and see a nutritionist; lets avoid the alcohol and let’s see how you do.” The apnea can probably be taken care of with these non-invasive techniques, she says, and invasive surgery can be avoided.
Weaker points:
What matters most is that there is not sufficient experience/data to determine the benefits and risks of the robotic procedure.
No mention of costs – not on the robotic surgery, not on CPAP.
Mixed bag but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt.
It said the CPAP “works for about half who try it” – but we wish it had provided a source for that info.
It said surgery (apparently referring to non-robotic surgery) is effective only 20-30% of the time.
And it said that maxillomandibular advancement is effective more than 90 percent of the time.
We don’t really know anything about the harms or benefits of the robotic surgery. The story could be more explicit about that.
The story only discusses success rates but doesn’t mention any potential harms. What are the actual problems people encounter when having “a series of surgeries to completely treat apnea” or when they have the more “highly invasive surgery”? And what has been found even in the limited series of robotic procedures?
The story doesn’t deliver any evaluation of the quality of the evidence. We hear from the surgeon that the nonsurgical CPAP approach “works for about half of all patients who try it” – at least that appears to be attributed to the surgeon. We’re actually not sure who the source is.
And we’re not given any caveat about the limitations of drawing conclusions based on one surgeon’s 6 robotic surgery cases. Instead, we’re given the glowing anecdote of one patient who says that surgery gave him “a whole new life.” We already learned that his case was one of the worst his doctors had ever seen. So how representative is his before/after experience?
The end of the piece refers several times to surgery – generically – and it’s not clear if it’s referring to a robotic approach or a more traditional approach.
No overt disease-mongering. And at least the story disclosed that the patient profiled had “one of the worst cases of apnea his doctors had ever seen.”
The story includes the perspective of one independent expert.
Gold stars for NPR finding someone to talk knowledgeably about the alternatives and risks.
Not totally clear on this point. The story states this one doctor has done the robotic surgery on only six patients. But it’s not clear if she’s the only one who’s done this surgery. And if not, where else and how often?
The story explains that only six patients have had the robotic procedure – at least in this one doctor’s practice.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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