The story reports recently published data establishing a clear link between heart disease and decreased kidney function. The story quotes the lead study author who advocates mass screening of kidney function. In the sidebar, the story suggests only screening patients with known risk factors, such as a relative with kidney disease, diabetes, or hypertension. The story does not talk about the lack of any national guidelines for screening. That might have helped emphasize the novelty of developing a population-based screening approach. Early screening may help doctors and patients stave off some of the effects of cardiovascular disease with medications to reduce blood pressure.
The story provides treatment options (medication) for managing early-stage chronic kidney disease and options for people who are making the decision for renal replacement if chronic kidney disease progresses to end-stage kidney disease (dialysis and transplant). The story states that kidney disease patients are "terrified" of having to go on dialysis, but no patients are actually interviewed. The story does give an explanation of the disease and how it affects the heart, but to say the kidneys “disintegrate” is not accurate.
Finally, the story only provides one perspective, that of the study author whose work is highlighted in the story. Interviews with primary care doctors or nephrologists, and possibly patients would be useful for balance in discussing the the pros and cons of routine screening for kidney disease in patients with and without known risk factors.
Generally, though, the story is well done.
The story lists the costs for screening – "urine and blood tests that cost less than $25."
The story mentions some interventions for people with declining kidney function, but these are not quantified. We are also not told if screening and subsequent monitoring and pharmacological interventions save lives, or how many people would need to be screened in order to makes such programs or practices cost effective.
The story focuses on the benefits of detecting disease. They could have talked about the potential harms of mass screening (i.e. the need to draw blood or the possibility of false positives). While the story is not focused on blood pressure management, per se, we are told that ACE (angiotensin II receptor blockers) inhibitors are "good for the heart", but the story does not mention potential side effects of these medications.
The story does an adequate job of explaining the evidence.
The story does not engage in disease mongering but some of the language used is questionable. The story says chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are "terrified" of having to go on dialysis, but no CKD patients are actually interviewed. The story does give an explanation of how kidney function works and how it can become impaired by heart disease, but to say the kidneys "disintegrate" with CKD is not accurate.
The story only provides one perspective, that of the study author whose work is highlighted in the story. Interviews with primary care doctors and nephrologists, and possibly patients would be useful for balance and for discussion of the pros and cons of mass screening.
The story provides treatment options (medication) for managing early-stage chronic kidney disease and options for people who are making the decision for renal replacement if chronic kidney disease progresses to end-stage kidney disease (dialysis and transplant).
It’s fairly clear from the story that the screening tests for kidney disease that are discussed are generally already available, although perhaps not used as much as some think they should be.
The story does not talk about the lack of any national guidelines for screening. That might have helped emphasize the novelty of developing a population-based screening approach. Early screening may help doctors and patients stave off some of the effects of cardiovascular disease with medications to reduce blood pressure.
Information in this story does not appear to be taken from a press release.
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