The decision by the FDA in 2004 to approve the ExAblate system for uterine fibroids represented a new option for women who are suffering from symptomatic fibroids but who want to avoid hysterectomy or other invasive treatments. However, little is known about the long-term safety and efficacy of the procedure. Furthermore, the procedure is expensive and availability is limited. This story does not adequately cover these issues and is flawed in many ways.
Although the story mentions hysterectomy and briefly mentions medications and other procedures, the story does not comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives or explain how this new treatment would fit with existing approaches. The story quotes two Mayo doctors and a representative of the company. This is insufficient. The story should have quoted clinicians or researchers who do not have a stake in the claims being made to provide some context about how this treatment will fit within the context of existing approaches. By quoting biased sources, it is likely that the benefits of this treatment have been inflated and the potential harms have been downplayed.
The story also does not attempt to quantify the benefits of treatment, nor does it mention harms of the treatment, which can include skin burns, thermal injury to surrounding tissue, and the need for repeat procedures. The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence, which is limited given that the procedure is so new. Although the story does mention that the procedure is expensive and not usually covered by insurance, this is not sufficient information on costs. What does it cost?
The story clearly states that this treatment was recently approved by the FDA and is only available in a dozen or so clinics in the U.S. The story should have mentioned where the clinics are located. The story clearly states that this is a novel approach to treating fibroids and it accurately describes the prevalence of fibroids. However, the story highlights one extreme case of fibroids. Most women with fibroids do not have trouble walking or have chronic pain.
By focusing on one woman’s positive experience, the story misses the complete picture of what is known about what this procedure can or can’t do for women with symptomatic fibroids.
Although the story does mention that the procedure is expensive and not usually covered by insurance, this is not sufficient information on costs. And it’s not good enough to say, “Mayo Clinic officials said the cost of the procedure varies for each patient, and declined to provide any estimates. They said patients can receive individual cost estimates before the procedure.” If it’s worth publicizing, it’s worth getting cost estimates.
The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of treatment. The story also doesn’t even explain whether women who have undergone this treatment actually have less menorrhagia.
The story does not mention harms of the treatment, which can include skin burns, thermal injury to surrounding tissue, and the need for repeat procedures.
The story does not comment on the strength of the available evidence, which is limited given that the procedure is so new. The story gives no comparison of outcomes (either positive or negative) from any of the other accepted therapies to treat fibroids.
The story accurately describes the prevalence of fibroids. However, the story also provides one extreme case of fibroids. Most women with fibroids are not as limited as the woman in the story and do not have continuous chronic pain. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and give it a satisfactory score here.
The story quotes two Mayo doctors and a representative of the company. This is insufficient. The story should have quoted clinicians or researchers who do not have a stake in the claims being made to provide some context about how this treatment will fit within the context of existing approaches. By quoting biased sources, it is likely that the benefits of this treatment have been inflated and the potential harms have been downplayed.
Although the story mentions hysterectomy and briefly mentions medications and other procedures, the story does not comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives or explain how this new treatment would fit within the context of existing approaches.
The story clearly states that this treatment was recently approved by the FDA and is only available in a dozen or so clinics in the U.S. It would have been more helpful to indicate where these other centers are located.
The story clearly states that this is a novel approach for treating fibroids.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information. However, the story did rely on the story of one patient, from one institution, using one technology from one company.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.