Drug-eluting or drug-coated stents were first introduced in the U.S. in the mid-90s. Ten years later, they have all but replaced traditional stents because of their ability to prevent the clogged artery from closing again. However, new information suggests that these stents may in fact be causing some clots to form. This story reports on this development and does a decent job of explaining the problem, but falls short in explaining the strength of the available evidence and overstating the potential benefits from stenting.
Although the story does describe the clot risk as 2 or 3 percent, the story should have provided more information here, such as, what is the time frame? How often are they fatal? How does this number compare to alternative options? Furthermore, the story inappropriately suggests that the benefits of stenting include a reduction in heart attacks. By accurately describing the prevalence of stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story verges on treatment mongering by describing stents as a "life-saving device" and suggesting that they can preventing heart attacks.
The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence on the harms from stenting. Furthermore, the story does not mention medications as an alternative treatment option, nor does the story describe the costs of stenting for an indiviual or relative to the alternatives.
NBC did something good at the conclusion of the story, letters viewers know that there was more information on their partner MSNBC website. When television newscasts don't afford much time to such complex stories, it is wise for them to use their websites in this way.
Although the story mentions what a big business there is in stents, it does not describe the costs of stenting to the individual or relative to any alternatives.
Although the story does describe the clot risk as 2 or 3 percent, the story should have provided more information here, such as, what is the time frame? How often are they fatal? How does this number compare to alternative options? Furthermore, the story inappropriatedly suggests that the benefits of stenting include a reduction in heart attacks.
The story does mention the possibility for stents to cause blood clots.
The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence on the harms from stenting.
By accurately describing the prevalence of stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. The story verges on treatment mongering by describing stents as a "life-saving device" and suggesting that they can preventing heart attacks.
The story does quote two physicians, albeit with not a lot of depth.
The story does not mention medications as an alternative treatment option.
The story clearly states that stenting is a common procedure.
The story clearly states that drug-eluting stents are not new.
Because the story used two different expert sources, it is unlikely it relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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