Our Review Summary
This was a story about how some doctors are taking a new look at anesthesia, the consequences associated with its use, and possible options for minimizing anesthesia exposure. The story pointed out that anesthesia use is an important addition to medical care, but that there are certain possible risks that merit further evaluation.
The story was somewhat alarmist, citing 'suggestions' that anestheisa might weaken the body's ability to kill tumor cells thereby making cancer recurrence more likely or that it might trigger an inflammatory response leading to atherosclerosis and other serious conditions. Mostly animal studies are cited to raise alarm about anesthesia. There are relevant human studies and they should have cited those and the rates of adverse effects.
Although one of the anesthesiologists interviewed for this story talked about 'increasing evidence', the story itself did not contain evidence or even traceable references to evidence on the topic. Instead, it quoted a number of experts about their 'suggestions', 'fears', and 'hopes' when it comes to the effects that anesthesia had on function.
While the story did mention rats taking longer to run a maze as adults when subjected to prolonged anesthesia when young, there was no quantitative estimate for the size of the effect anesthesia had been demonstrated to play. Even when data were given (1998 Lancet study showing 10% of elderly surgery patients have worse scores on cognition tests post surgery) we get no information on the magnitude of the effect (is it clinically important?) or on the research design (and therefore, the likely validity of any findings).
There were clear attempts to inject balance into the story. The story stated, "Many clinical anesthesiologists question the relevance of the animal studies." One source said, "Human babies are not large rat pups." It is also stated, "Most anesthesiologists and surgeons, citing the millions of people the world over who live long, healthy lives after surgery, say there is no call for worry."
Criteria
Not Applicable
There was no discussion of costs but we acknowledge that costs would be difficult to discuss in this story. They might have discussed the comparative costs of general vs. spinal vs. regional anesthesia or the potential downstream costs of anesthesia adverse effects.
Not Satisfactory
The benefits associated with the use of anesthesia were not presented other than the introduction explaining that anesthesia allows a patient to 'wake……as if from a deep slumber' having made it possible for surgery to take place.
However there was no quantification of benefit from anesthesia in terms of how surgical risks are decreased in an anesthetized as opposed to unanesthetized patient. The story could also have addressed the comparative benefits between different forms of anesthesia.
Satisfactory
Possible harms associated with anesthesia were discussed in the article, though there was no information about how often these harms occur or how severe the effects might be.
There were clear attempts to balance the information. The story stated, "Many clinical anesthesiologists question the relevance of the animal studies." One source said, "Human babies are not large rat pups."
Not Satisfactory
Although one of the anesthesiologists interviewed for this story talked about 'increasing evidence', the story itself did not contain evidence or even traceable references to evidence on the topic. Instead, it quoted a number of experts about their 'suggestions', 'fears', and 'hopes' when it comes to the effects that anesthesia had on function.
While the story did mention rats taking longer to run a maze as adults when subjected to prolonged anesthesia when young, there was no quantitative estimate for the size of the effect anesthesia had been demonstrated to play. Even when data were given (1998 Lancet study showing 10% of elderly surgery patients have worse scores on cognition tests post surgery) we get no information on the magnitude of the effect (is it clinically important?) or on the research design (and therefore, the likely validity of any findings).
Satisfactory
The story was somewhat alarmist, citing 'suggestions' that anesthesia might weaken the body's ability to kill tumor cells thereby making cancer recurrence more likely or that it might trigger an inflammatory response leading to atherosclerosis and other serious conditions. Mostly animal studies are cited to raise alarm about anesthesia. There are relevant human studies and they should have cited those and the rates of adverse effects. However, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt because there were clear attempts to inject balance, with lines such as, "Most anesthesiologists and surgeons, citing the millions of people the world over who live long, healthy lives after surgery, say there is no call for worry."
Satisfactory
Several professors were interviewed for this story including at least one who was not associated with a department of anesthesia.
Not Satisfactory
Although outlining reasons why anesthesia might present some increased risk of bodily harm, the story did not provide any guidance for determining whether a patient has any options in regards to anesthesia type, dose, and duration or anything about categories of procedures where options were more likely. Various anesthesia options were mentioned (regional/spinal/local) as was the fact that studies are underway to test hypotheses about particular advantages. However, the story didn't discuss any of the known advantages/disadvantages of these alternatives.
Satisfactory
The use of anesthesia is widely utilized in the surgical management of medical conditions, which is clear in the story.
Satisfactory
The story was clear that anesthesia is not new but explained that what is a more recent wrinkle is a focused examination of the long term impact of exposure to anesthesia
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Total Score: 6 of 9 Satisfactory
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