The Daskor disk system joins a long list of devices purporting to treat back pain. The device is still in its infancy, having only enrolled 20 patients in an ongoing clinical trial. This story does little to provide the reader with quality information on the value of this new technology. Of note, while the story accurately represents the availability and novelty of the technology, it crosses the line into disease mongering, provides no information on the possible harms, fails to quantify benefits, and provides scant information on the alternatives.
There are several instances where the story crosses the line into disease mongering. First, by estimating that "70 to 80 percent of Americans will experince back pain", the story implies that all of these people will be candidates for some kind of intervention. The vast majority of these cases are acute episodes that will resolve. Second, by talking about various different kinds of back problems, first herniated disk and later deteriorating disks, it is not clear what the indication is for this system. The story seems to imply that all patients with back pain would be a candidate. Finally, it is not clear what the story means by "diseased nucleus."
Although the story mentions a "clinical trial" with 20 patients, this is not enough information about the strength of the available evidence. The story does not mention any harms of the procedure and by emphasizing that it is "minimally invasive" seems to imply that it has very few risks. Furthermore, the story implies that the results are "promising" without demonstrating that with any quantitative information.
Finally, although the story mentions physical therapy, medication and surgery, it does not do enough to describe the pros and cons of the options and never mentions that most patients will not need some kind of surgical intervention.
This story ran in a business section, and its information may be of more value to investors than to people with back pain. We argue that the editorial standards should be the same for either readership segment. And just because it’s the product of a local company, that doesn’t give the product a ticket for free glowing coverage.
The story does not mention costs of the system or of the alternatives. The story could have projected what the costs will be, especially since this is touted as a $4 billion industry that is growing at 20% per year. e
The story implies that the results are "promising" without demonstrating that with any quantitative information.
The story does not mention any harms of the procedure and by emphasizing that it is "minimally invasive" seems to imply that it has very few risks.
Although the story mentions a "clinical trial" with 20 patients, this is not enough information about the strength of the available evidence.
There are several instances where the story crosses the line into disease mongering. First, by estimating that "70 to 80 percent of Americans will experience back pain", the story implies that all of these people will be candidates for some kind of intervention. The vast majority of these cases are acute episodes that will resolve. Second, by talking about various different kinds of back problems, first herniated disk and later deteriorating disks, it is not clear what the indication is for this system. The story seems to imply that all patients with back pain would be a candidate. Finally, it is not clear what the story means by "diseased nucleus."
The story does quote two surgeons, one of whom is identified as not involved with the study. However, the story could have done more to present opposing points of view on the value of such a new technology.
Although the story mentions physical therapy, medication and surgery, it does not do enough to describe the pros and cons of the options. Furthermore the story never mentions that most patients will not need some kind of surgical intervention.
The story clearly states that the disc implant system has not yet been approved in the U.S. and has not yet been extensively tested.
The story clearly states that this is a novel approach.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.