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

Gastric Bypass May Improve Diabetes Quickly

Rating

3 Star

Categories

Tags

Gastric Bypass May Improve Diabetes Quickly

Our Review Summary

This story lacks appropriate context. There has been an enormous amount of research in the past decade on the mechanisms behind surgery-induced diabetes remission. The story implies that a major breakthrough has been made, when in fact many prior research studies have provided far more evidence than this one.

The story failed to report on the cost of treatment, how likely it is that diabetes resolves, or how commonly diabetes reoccurs as a chronic condition requiring management.

It simply didn’t give readers sufficient information to evaluation the treatment reported on.

 

Why This Matters

Type II diabetes is a common chronic illness and in evaluating treatments, readers need more complete information about the chances for benefit, harm and costs to determine value in a particular treatment.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although there was an acknowledgment that it simply wasn’t possible to offer gastric bypass surgery to everyone with type II diabetes, there was no discussion about the costs of gastric bypass surgery.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story reported on the impact of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes in a very small group of patients (10) in which all of them experienced improvement in their diabetes.  However – there are numerous larger studies which have been conducted that have examined the impact of this surgery on diabetes.  While the impact on diabetes is good, rather than all patients demonstrating benefit, broader experience indicates that about 80% of those with type Ii diabetes will see improvement.

The story also implies that there could be some benefit to readers of knowing that branch chain amino acids are reduced by surgery. There is no quantifiable benefit to this piece of the puzzle.

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

Not Satisfactory

While the story did mention some of the common side effects that occur following gastric bypass surgery, it actually neglected to mention some of the serious side effects of surgery.

In addition, since the story was about the impact of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes, it also should have mentioned that resolution of diabetes is not guaranteed to be permanent and reoccurs in as many as 30 out of 100 people who had improvement.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story reported on a preliminary study to compare amino acid profiles in individuals with type II diabetes losing following gastric bypass surgery or solely through caloric restriction.  But it never adequately explained the significance of changing amino acid levels – bouncing from a statement in one sentence that these amino acids are associated with insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease, to a news release-lifted statement in the next sentence that we don’t understand how the amino acids influence diabetes risk.  Since the story – in its subhead and body copy – focused so much on the change in amino acids, it should have emphasized that there is no quantifiable benefit to this piece of the puzzle.

And the story could have done a better job describing the much broader substantive research that has been done on this same topic.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story does not engage in overt disease mongering.

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

Satisfactory

In addition to two authors of the study reported on, a spokesperson from the American Diabetes Association commented on the impact of gastric bypass on type II diabetes.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story briefly mentioned the difference in short term improvement in diabetes in those having gastric bypass and those losing weight through caloric restriction.  But it really didn’t quantify the benefits and harms of the two alternative approaches.

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

Satisfactory

It’s clear that gastric bypass is a readily available surgical procedure.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

Gastric bypass is not novel and the story – in reporting that 200,000 people have it each year – did not portray it as such.

Turning improved understanding about branched chain amino acids impacting diabetes into an effective treatment for diabetes is at this time hypothetical and was discussed as having potential for use.

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

Satisfactory

The story indicated that it drew some of its information from a news release. But it also included interviews with one of the researchers and with an American Diabetes Association official.  So it did not appear to rely solely on a news release.

Total Score: 5 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.