This story reported on a recently published scientific article documenting an increase in the number of children having weight loss surgery. The story mentioned that rates of surgical complications were lower in children than in adults, and that their hospital stays were shorter. But it gave no estimates of weight loss that might be obtained, no estimates for the incidence of side-effects or adverse outcomes that might be associated with the surgery, or what the long term effects of the procedure might be.
This story represents another example of a newspaper shortening an original Associated Press story, and, in the process, leaving out some important information. We've addressed this practice before and will continue to do so. We give an unsatisfactory score to the editing done by the Baltimore Sun, which shortened the original AP story. The Sun story did not mention any harms associated with weight loss surgery in children. The full length AP piece, from which the story was taken, did mention that obesity surgery during teen years could be associated with psychological risks. In addition it mentioned that the question of how teens fared after leaving the hospital was left unanswered. However, neither the full AP story nor the shortened Sun story explicitly mentioned any medical complications or long-term concerns.
The story provided an estimate of hospital charges associated with weight loss surgery in children.
The story did not quantify the benefits associated with the treatment. There was no estimate of average weight loss observed, though there was discussion of one young man who lost 200 pounds in the 18 months following surgery. The longer AP version of this story mentioned that "the benefits outweight the risks for most patients," but still without quantifying those benefits or risks.
We give an unsatisfactory score to the editing done by the Baltimore Sun, which shortened the original AP story. The Sun story did not mention any harms associated with weight loss surgery in children. The full length AP piece, from which the story was taken, did mention that obesity surgery during teen years could be associated with psychological risks. In addition it mentioned that the question of how teens fared after leaving the hospital was left unanswered. However, neither the full AP story nor the shortened Sun story explicitly mentioned any medical complications or long-term concerns.
The story mentioned that the information it reported on came from a recently published article analyzying a database of hospital patients.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The sources of information for this story appear to be the scientific article, one of its authors, and one patient. The story would have been improved by having someone comment on the significance of the results reported on. This is a controversial issue and there are other experts who could have raised more concerns about the long-term health consequences.
This was a story about the change in rate of weight loss surgery in children. Although it did not contain mention of other treatment options for weight loss, this was really not its focus.
The entire basis for the story was the growing number of children having obesity surgery, but the story could have given some indication about the number of hospitals that performed these procedures in children.
The story failed to mention that this procedure in adolescents is still considered very much "experimental" by most experts when applied to this population. The story underemphasized the lack of long-term follow-up data on these kids which leaves the reader with the impression that it is pretty routine when it is not. The uncertainties surrounding the "newness" of the procedure in adolescents is very important. (Again, the Baltimore Sun story cut out the only reference to this issue.)
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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