The news that stents do not prolong life or prevent heart attacks in patients with stable heart disease came as a big surprise to many this week, as the results of a large randomized clinical trial were presented at the week's American College of Cardiology meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine. These latest results put the use of stenting under further scrutiny, as did the recent finding that coated stents actually increase the risk of clotting.
This story accurately reports on the availability and novelty of stenting as well as the design of the current study. Furthermore, the story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. In addition, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease.
However, while the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms of stenting and the study does not mention any possible harms of medication.
Overall, a good job working within the usual limitations of TV news.
While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison.
The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group.
Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease.
The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease.
The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting.
The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S.
The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did 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