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

40% of Gastric Banding Patients Have Complications

Rating

4 Star

Categories

40% of Gastric Banding Patients Have Complications

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

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although not discussed in the study precipitating the story, the costs for gastric banding and appropriate follow-up care are readily available.

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

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.

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

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.”

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

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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.

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

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.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

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.

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

Satisfactory

The gastric banding procedure was appropriately described as an available treatment.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

It is clear from the story that the procedure is not new.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

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.