While the story begins with a small research study about two different methods of weight-loss surgery, it expands and includes context about wider debate over whether shedding pounds improves health and life expectancy. We do wish it had included cost and insurance coverage information.
Size matters. Today’s obese Americans face higher risks of heart disease, diabetes and stroke because of their weight. But in this story, important questions are raised about the risks posed by one type of weight-loss surgery – known as duodenal switch surgery. An estimated 220,000 Americans had some sort of weight-loss surgery in 2009. Besides the suggestion that this specific surgical procedure may pose inordinate risk, the story also raises overall questions about whether weight-loss surgery has been overhyped. “We really don’t know if there is a survival benefit” from weight-loss surgery, said one expert. The size of weight loss may not predict the improvement of health to follow, in a simple relationship. As with many clinical controversies, it may take doctors a long time to establish guidelines for the risks vs. the benefits of this sort of surgery.
No mention in this lengthy story of the costs of the two procedures or insurance coverage. Readers need this information, and the fact that the duodenal switch may not be covered by most insurance. The total cost of gastric bypass is about $20,000.
The story makes clear that the duodenal switch surgery, in comparison with the bariatric surgery, may give patients greater weight loss in pounds but the value of that reduction is not clear. The additional information from the paper published by Livingston demonstrating no advantage to surgery over medical management was very useful.
The story shines in its details about the delicate weighing of risk vs. benefits for weight-loss surgery in general, and then for the duodenal vs. gastric bypass method in particular. Some readers might find it confusing that the story includes two separate publications about weight-loss surgery. The story leads with the small study comparing duodenal with gastric bypass, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, but then delves into a larger Veterans Administration study from the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at the longer-term results of all surgeries for obesity. We salute Reuters for providing the context and the controversy within medical practice, and quoting a principal investigator on the VA study, Edward Livingstone, who wrote an editorial that appeared in the Annals beside the duodenal paper.
The story reports on a very small study – just 58 patients in total and 29 received the duodenal surgery. Only one comment addressed the quality of the evidence: “Larger, longer-term studies are still needed to show whether the extra weight loss with duodenal switch” improves the health and lengthens the lives of obese patients, explained lead researcher Torgeir Sovik. We would have liked a reminder of the preliminary nature of the conclusions higher up in the story.
This story does a good job of probing territory that is under-explored in most media accounts about obesity treatment. It poses the questions of long-term quality of life and life expectancy post treatment. Could obesity itself be less life-threatening than some of the radical treatments aimed at treating it?
In addition to quoting the lead author of the Annals article, we liked the balance provided by Edward Livingston in his comments about both the duodenal switch procedure and his comments about the value of surgery in general over medical management.
The story concentrates on patients receiving weight-loss surgery, and does not discuss non-surgical alternatives at much length. It does mention the study by Livingston questioning the value of surgery over medical management. Behavior coaching, diet and exercise are all potential treatments for obesity.
The story explains that duodenal switch is “less common” and that “Duodenal switch is not a popular procedure.” In a 2008 study, it accounted for just 1 percent of weight-loss, or bariatric, surgeries done in the U.S., and 5 percent in Europe.”
The story makes it clear that the duodenal switch procedure has been around for a number of years but is rarely used.
No, it does not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
You might also like