This story reports on the results of a large clinical trial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluating surgery compared to non-operative care for herniated disc. This trial represents the first randomized clinical trial of surgery in the US since 1983 and greatly improves our understanding of the benefits of surgery. This story does a good job of explaining the strength of the existing evidence and rightly highlights some of the controversies. The story also does a good job of focusing on why patients need to be informed and take a lead role in decision making.
The story does a decent job of describing the new study and explaining the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs, or people in the study who were initially designated to non-operative care who opted to have surgery (or vice versa). The also story mentions various kinds of non-operative care, including physical therapy, medications and steroid injections, as the alternative to surgery.
The story only quotes the study's lead author. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who could have provided other perspectives. The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment and although harms of surgery are rare, the story should have mentioned the possible complications such as wound infection or need for reoperation. There was no discussion of costs of surgery or of any of the non-operative options.
Unfortunately, the story crosses the line into disease mongering in the beginning of the story by stating that back pain is "almost as common as the common cold." Although back pain is common, this story is really about herniated disc, a specific back condition that is relatively uncommon. The story does not clearly differentiate between the average patient with low back pain and the patients enrolled in this study who had sciatica due to a herniated disc. The study goes on to describe what a herniated disc is, but the first paragraph implies that 4 out of 5 of us will have the condition described in the story.
The story does not mention costs of surgery or any of the non-operative options.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment and presents qualitative results only.
Although harms of surgery are rare, the story should have mentioned the possible complications such as wound infection or need for reoperation. The story also does not address potential harms of non-operative treatment, such as permanent nerve damage from cauda equina syndrome.
The story at least attempts to describe the study and to explain the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs, or people in the study who were initially designated to non-operative care who opted to have surgery (or vice versa). We'll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story crosses the line into disease mongering in the beginning of the story by stating that back pain is "almost as common as the common cold." Although back pain is common, this story is really about herniated disc, a specific back condition that is relatively uncommon. The story does not clearly differentiate between the average patient with low back pain and the patients enrolled in this study who had sciatica due to a herniated disc. The study goes on to describe what a herniated disc is, but the first paragraph implies that 4 out of 5 of us will have the condition described in the story.
The story only quotes the study's lead author. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who could have provided other perspectives.
The story mentions various kinds of non-operative care, including physical therapy, medications and steroid injections, as the alternative to surgery.
It's clear from the storyt that surgery for herniated disc is widely available.
It's clear from the story that surgery is not a new idea.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it did only interview the study's lead author.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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