The article describes a new study that shows a commonly used procedure, angioplasty, is not more effective than medical therapy (taking medications and lifestyle change) in preventing heart attack or death in people with stable heart disease. The story does a good job of clearly letting readers know the availability of this treatment, that it's not new, the costs of treatment, and the alternate treatment options. It also turned to several independent sources.
One area that could have been clearer was stating that this was a randomized trial – the gold standard in research. It's hinted at several times in the article, but it's never clearly disclosed and this is a major point to make to establish the strength of the evidence. The story could have also done a better job quantifying the benefits seen in the trial, although a secondary outcome is given in absolute terms. The actual numbers for the primary outcome were not given, except to state that they were not statistically significant. Yet, readers aren't given any context about what that might mean. Finally, harms of angioplasty are not discussed.
The story mentions that angioplasty typically costs $50,000. While it would have been helpful to have a sense for the cost of angioplasty in in comparison to medical therapy, the story does give a sense of the cost burden to the healthcare system by providing procedures that don't benefit a significant proportion of patients.
The story does not provide actual rates of events (the primary outcome) between the two groups, although it does state that the numbers were not statistically significant. The story does provide absolute rates for angina, a secondary outcome which was significantly different between groups. Yet, it would have been best to report absolute rates, even if they are non-significant, for the primary outcome. There was no discussion about what "statistically non-significant" might mean.
The story states the procedure is considered "safe" but that it does carry some risks. However, what those risks are and their frequency or severity is not discussed.
The story doesn't mention explicitly that this study was a randomized trial, the gold standard in research, even though there were multiple opportunities to clarify the type of evidence the findings are based on. The story describes the study as "the first well-designed comparison…" which doesn't make it explicit that this is a randomized trial. A quote from a clinician talks about the fact that "nobody had done a proper randomized trial" but that doesn't necessarily make it clear that this is a randomized trial. Nonetheless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Several sources are quoted.
The story discusses lifestyle changes and medication as alternate treatment options, and these alternate options were directly compared to angioplasty in the study.
The article states the new study challenges routine use of a procedure – angioplasty – that has become standard care, thereby letting readers know that this procedure is currently used and widely available.
The story accurately states this has been routine practice for the past 20 years.
Since several sources were used, it is safe to assume that this story did not rely solely or largely on a news 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