Our Review Summary
This is a story reporting on a study detailing the long-term outcomes observed in a group of patients more than a decade after having gastric banding to help with weight management. The story provided some useful insight about how gastric banding and gastric bypass compare in terms of rates and magnitude of weight loss. It also informed readers about the fact that outcomes following banding surgery are highly variable.
Why This Matters
Obesity is an increasingly common and increasingly serious risk factor for disease and early death. Providing readers with realistic expectations about the benefits of gastric banding is useful for those making decisions about what approach to take to help manage their weight. While gastric banding may be less invasive and appealing in the short term, the long term outcomes of the approach are in question, especially for morbidly obese patients. This new study adds to our understanding of the limitations of this minimally invasive procedure.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Although not discussed in the study precipitating the story, the costs for gastric banding and appropriate follow-up care are readily available.
Satisfactory
The story reported the average long term loss of excess weight that was observed in the study along with an insight from a clinician indicating that there is some variability observed among practices.
Satisfactory
The story provided quantitative information about the harms observed in the study population who had had gastric banding surgery. It says, “However, 39 percent of the patients had experienced serious complications, including abnormal pouch expansion (9), band erosion (23) and band infection (1). Another 22 percent experienced relatively minor complications. Almost 50 percent had to have the bands entirely removed, while 60 percent needed to undergo subsequent surgery. The procedure “appears to result in relatively poor long-term outcomes,” the researchers concluded.”
Not Satisfactory
The story provided only hints about the study on which it was reporting. It should have provided better context and asked tougher questions about the study. The timeline in the story also may confuse readers. It says that gastric banding has been an alternative to gastric bypass since 2001, but then it says the study followed patients who received operations from 1994 to 1997. This appears to be before the band was approved. The story should have said that the 2001 date was when the FDA approved banding for use in the US and that the study population was in Belgium. It also should have mentioned that the pool of patients studied were treated at a single clinic.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The story quoted an author of the study, the author of a critique on that study, and a surgeon who did not appear to have ties with the study. But the story missed a key fact that WebMD found in the study and reported, which is the conflicts of interest for the study’s lead author, who, as WebMD pointed out, “reports consultant work for Ethicon Endosurgery, which makes another gastric band, Realize, and for Covidien, a health care products company.” Not pointing out that the author has worked for a competing gastric band maker is a significant drawback to the story.
Satisfactory
The story relied on a critique published alongside the study from Dr. Clifford W. Deveney, a professor of surgery in the department of surgery at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, to provide readers some good comparison information between gastric bypass surgery and gastric banding. We would have liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of the evidence for both and also at lesat some mention of diet and exercise.
Satisfactory
The gastric banding procedure was appropriately described as an available treatment.
Satisfactory
It is clear from the story that the procedure is not new.
Satisfactory
The story does not appear to rely solely on a press release.
Total Score: 7 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.
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