In 2002, the FDA approved Essure, a sterilization system in which flexible coils are inserted through the cervix into the fallopian tubes. Once implanted, the coils cause scar tissue to grow, thereby blocking the tubes and causing sterilization. Essure represents a novel approach to female sterilization because it requires no incisions and can be performed under local anesthesia in a doctor's office.
This story does an adequate job of describing the novelty of Essure and mentions the alternatives and potential harms for the reader. The story also quantifies the failure rate of Essure compared to tubal ligation.
However, the story does not adequately comment on the availability of the system, which may be limited by the requirement for special training. The story also does not describe the costs of the procedure or the strength of the available evidence to support its use.
The story does not mention costs of Essure compared to tubal ligation.
The story does quantify the effectiveness of Essure compared to tubal ligation. But it cites the manufacturer as the source of the information. Why not turn to the studies?
The story does a good job of describing the possible harms of Essure. The story should have pointed out that, because the procedure is new, long-term safety is not known.
The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence to claim that Essure is as safe and effective as the older procedures. In fact, it cites the manufacturer as the source of the information on effectiveness. Why not turn to the studies? How were they done? What's the quality of the evidence?
The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering.
The story does quote an expert who describes the risks and benefits of the procedure fairly well. The story could have quoted another clinician or expert to comment on the roll of Essure in clinical practice.
The story does mention the Pill, the Ring, the Sponge, an IUD and tubal ligation as alternatives to Essure. The story could have provided more content for the reader about the pros and cons of the different approaches.
Although the story mentions that the Essure approach was relatively recently approved (in 2002), it does not comment on how widely it is available, how many providers have the special training required and whether access may be limited as a result.
The story does state that Essure was relatively recently approved (in 2002) and represents a novel approach to sterility.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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