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

Electronic Nose Sniffs Out Heart Failure

Rating

3 Star

Categories

Electronic Nose Sniffs Out Heart Failure

Our Review Summary

Even in a very short story, WebMD manages to cover many of the important issues readers need to know in order to make sense of what seems like a fascinating piece of research: an electronic nose that sniffs out heart failure. The story could have spent more time with independent experts and delved a little more deeply into the risks associated with a device that provides an incorrect diagnoses 16% of the time.

 

Why This Matters

Some of us are old enough to remember Dr. McCoy’s trusty Tricorder from Star Trek, a device that could give lab results and make a diagnosis possible with just a wave of a probe over the patient. It is not surprising then that journalists would pick up on yet another version of a potential real life device.That doesn’t mean, though, that it deserves all the attention and resources that a more significant medical advance based on substantial evidence would merit. Overall, though, WebMD devoted an appropriate amount of attention to this limited study on a computerized heart failure sniffer.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The story does not discuss costs. Because the research is in its infancy and there does not appear to be a comparable device, we don’t think the cost question applies here.

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

Not Satisfactory
The story provides the basic information necessary to evaluate the possible benefits of the device. It says, “The new study involved 27 people with heart failure so severe that they were comfortable only at rest, 25 people with less severe heart failure, and 28 healthy people. The electronic nose correctly identified 89% of the people who had heart failure and 84% of people that didn’t have the condition.” Readers should have been told what this meant in absolute terms. How many more people received a correct diagnosis versus an incorrect diagnosis? If the potential benefit is the detection of people with early, subclinical heart failure, the story is a bit optimistic. The test subjects were those with defined heart failure and not those with subclinical disease, meaning people who could truly benefit from early diagnosis. Because of that, it’s hard to say that the findings show any true benefits.

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

Satisfactory

The story notes that, “11% of cases would have been missed and 16% of people would have been told they had a life-threatening condition when they didn’t.” There could have been a little more discussion of the ramifications of a test with this kind of error rate.

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

Not Satisfactory

The research findings were presented in a poster session at an international seminar and as such have not been subjected to peer review. The story pointed out one of the major limitations of the study: the fact that it covered fewer than 100 people. We wish it had explored other possible limitations and that it had been more explicit about the study methods and other inherent limitations

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story explains clearly who might benefit from such a device. It says, “More than 5 million Americans have heart failure, which occurs when the heart muscle loses its ability to pump enough blood throughout the body. Fluid can back up into the lungs, leaving people short of breath.”

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

Satisfactory

One indepedent source is quoted. The story was based on a news briefing at a research conference, and we understand the need to file under deadline pressure. At the same time, we think the story would have benefited from at least one discussion with an expert outside of the study or the news briefing, perhaps another expert on a panel at the same conference. The story could have noted that a patent application has been filed for the device.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There is no comparison with existing alternatives, which leaves readers a bit confused. How is heart failure detected now and why would the world need this device? There are numerous diagnostic tests used in the diagnosis of heart failure, many of them as simple as a blood test or ultrasound.

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

Satisfactory

The story makes it clear that this device is still in the early phases of testing.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story indicates that this would be a novel approach, but not enough evidence or context is presented to establish this. While the specifics may be unique, the concept has been the topic of research since the mid to late 1990s.

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

Satisfactory

The story does not rely on a news release.

Total Score: 5 of 9 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.