This story presented the seemingly counterintuitive results from a large, randomized trial that found that non-emergency heart patients faired equally well in terms of chest pain, risk of heart attack, or death whether they were treated with medications alone or medications plus angioplasty and the placement of a stent in the partially blocked artery.
The story explained that the study followed those who were non-emergency heart patients and that angioplasty is still thought to be the best treatment for those having a heart attack or those w ho are hospitalized with worsening symptoms. The story did a good job of explaining the idea that a large number of people (> 500,000/year) are having an invasive procedure without obtaining additional benefit.
Unlike many studies presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting, this one was also peer-reviewed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, something the story pointed out.
Overall good job.
This story did not include a comparison of the costs for the two treatments. This was not a part of the journal article describing the study but was contained within the presentation given at the recent meeting of the American College of Cardiology. (Note: both the journal article and the meeting were mentioned in the story.)
The benefits of treatment, reduction in chest pain, rates of heart attack and death, were presented.
The story mentioned the percent of individuals in each group that initially had angina and then compared that with the percent affected at 3 and 5 years. It also mentioned the rates of heart attack and death in both treatment groups.
While the story mentioned 1/3 of those in the medication-only group later went on to have a stent put in or had coronary bypass surgery, it could have compared this with the number of individuals in the stent and medication group who went on to either have an additional stent placed or had bypass surgery. (30% vs. 20%)
The story did a good job reporting on the results of the study; it explained that all the people in the study were treated with medication and that half of the people were assigned to have angioplasty.
This story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story included quotes from two of the authors of the study as well as the director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the president of the American College of Cardiology.
It might have been useful to readers to have a comment from a clinician in primary care.
The story touched on several different treatment options for non-emergency heart patients: angioplasty, drug therapy, stents, bypass surgery, and healthy lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise and smoking cessation).
This story reported on a comparison of treatments for coronary artery disease that are used widely and described them as such.
The treatments reported on were not new and were not presented as being new.
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