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

Less-invasive appendix surgery shines in new study

Rating

5 Star

Tags

Less-invasive appendix surgery shines in new study

Our Review Summary

It’s also noteworthy that this reporter’s work consistently scores high in our reviews.  The commitment to excellence is evident.

This is a clear, concise explanation of a journal article’s findings.

 

Why This Matters

Elective appendectomy is a common surgical procedure that is now routinely performed using minimally invasive techniques. The question of whether laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and cost effective for a ruptured appendix has been an unresolved question. This new study adds some additional insight albeit with several important provisos.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Nice job on this.  The story states:

“For uncomplicated cases of appendicitis, in which the appendix is still intact, the tabs for the two surgeries came out about the same, at just over $7,800. …When the appendix had burst, however, the open surgery racked up a considerably higher bill. On average, it cost $17,594, compared to $12,125 for the laparoscopic surgery.”

 

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

Satisfactory

As already noted, the story did a good job comparing death rate, readmission rate and hospital stays between the two procedures.

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

Satisfactory

Good job comparing death rate, readmission rate and hospital stays between the two procedures.

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

Satisfactory

The story quotes the lead researcher’s own caveats about limitations of the research: “he acknowledged that the study has major limitations. First, it looks only at academic medical centers. And second, it’s not a randomized controlled trial, which means the patients being compared could be different in important ways, explaining at least part of the outcomes of the two types of surgery.Indeed, those who had laparoscopy were younger and usually had less severe disease, which could have biased the results in favor of the minimally invasive procedure.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering at play here.

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

Not Satisfactory

There was no independent perspective offered.  So, even though the lead researcher offered his own caveats about the limitations of the research, we always wish for an independent expert’s voice to be heard in such stories.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The focus of the story was the comparison between two surgical approaches.

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

Satisfactory

The widespread use of laparascopic appendectomy was clear in the story.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story offered this helpful context:

“…experiments comparing the two kinds of procedure have yielded mixed outcomes, and some experts remain unconvinced that laparoscopy is worth its higher upfront cost.The new study, in the Annals of Surgery, doesn’t settle that question. But it does suggest that laparoscopy could actually save thousands of dollars for some patients, when all costs — including physician fees, hospital fees and readmissions — are considered.”

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

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story didn’t rely on a news release.

Total Score: 9 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.