When drug-coated or durg-eluting stents went on the market, they immediately changed clinical practice by replacing the standard bare metal stents. The purpose of the drug-coated stent was to prevent the clogged artery from becoming clogged again. However, new reports are emerging that these stents may actually be causing some clots to form. Enough evidence is mounting that the FDA convened a panel to discuss how these new developments will affect how stents are used in routine practice. This story does an excellent job of describing the scale of the problem and quoting multiple experts who fall on different sides of the debate.
The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitations of using hosptial registries as a source of data. By accurately describing the prevalence of coronary artery disease, the story avoids disease mongering. Furthermore, the story mentions alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications. The story also describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents.
The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented in absolute rather than relative terms.
Overall, this was a balanced and comprehensive piece.
The story describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents.
The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented in absolute rather than relative terms.
The story adequately describes the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents and of bleeding with Plavix.
The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitations of using hospital registries as a source of data.
By accurately describing the prevalence of restenosis, or narrowing of the artery after stenting, the story avoids disease mongering.
The story quotes multiple experts who have differing perspectives on how the new information changes clinical practice.
The story does mention alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications.
The story clearly states that drug-coated stents are common.
The story clearly states that the drug-coated stents are new but have been widely used since they were introduced.
Because the story quotes multiple independent sources the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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