This story reported on the growing popularity of joint replacement surgery, which it said is driven by Baby Boomers who want to take advantage of improving technology to regain their active lifestyles.
To its credit, the story addressed costs, highlighted overly optimistic expectations by patients, and mentioned the generous incomes of surgeons who perform these operations. Yet, in some parts of the story, it reads like an advertisement for joint replacements and for the doctors and hospitals that perform them, compounded by futuristic terminology like “bionic.”
This was amplified by the lack of specific data on benefits for patients, and the only expert quoted has a conflict of interest that wasn’t disclosed. The story also could have mentioned evidence that many joint replacements don’t do much good.
The estimated global market for joint replacement is $16 billion, with most of that spent in the U.S. However, there’s evidence that many of these procedures aren’t providing much benefit for the people who get them, so restraint is warranted in reporting about these invasive and costly procedures.
The story states: “The procedures can cost up to $50,000 for knees and $40,000 for hips, though the prices vary widely among Medicare and private insurers, which typically bear the bulk of the cost.”
The story offered several positive anecdotes, such as a former mountain climber and football player who resumed his ability to hike and run on a treadmill after two knee replacements.
But there was little data.
It would have been much better to quote an objective research study about knee and hip replacements and to present real estimates of these patient-reported outcomes.
The story mentioned at least some potential harms:
In patient-reported surveys, some still complain of pain and tissue inflammation after their procedures. Smaller numbers suffer serious complications, ranging from blood clotting to hospital-acquired infections.
Still, it could have devoted more attention to risks, including the lax regulation of implantable devices.
The story offered some cautions, noting boomers “may have a tougher time coming to terms with the reality that a new body part doesn’t mean they can resume all of the high-impact activities that were a major part of their lives.
“Nobody will return to playing football,” (surgeon David) Mattingly said. “The person who struggles is the one who’s done long-distance running for years and just doesn’t want to give it up.”
But the story could have given more caveats. For example, an analysis funded by a government-industry initiative concluded that total knee replacements for patients with osteoarthritis had “minimal effects on quality of life” and may be warranted only for those with more severe symptoms.
The story also reported that implants “don’t wear down as fast as they once did” and have a “90% chance of lasting two decades,” but no evidence was cited. Some research has questioned the safety and efficacy of new hip and knee implants, and that wasn’t mentioned.
The story ignored a body of evidence showing many patients who receive joint replacements don’t get much benefit, including a recent report that found one in four joint replacements in Australia weren’t needed.
The story admirably reported the generous pay of doctors who do joint replacements: “Last year, the average salary for joint-replacement specialists topped $575,000, reported the Dallas consulting firm Merritt Hawkins & Associates, compared with just over $230,000 for family doctors.”
But the story doesn’t tell readers that the only doctor it quotes — orthopedic surgeon David Mattingly, M.D. — has received $160,000 from joint maker DePuy Synthes, a division of Johnson & Johnson, in recent years, according to the database Open Payments.
It would have been good to quote a doctor who doesn’t make a living doing these surgeries (e.g. an internist or sports medicine doctor who treats hip and knee osteoarthritis).
There was no mention of alternatives such as cartilage restoration procedures to stabilize joints, losing weight to ease joint strain, and managing activity to avoid injury.
Treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis is a classic example of a “shared decision” that should be made based on patient preference because there is no “right” answer – joint replacement is often no better than physical therapy, for example, but this did not come across at all in the piece.
Here’s an example of a decision aid for hip and knee osteoarthritis.
The story made it clear that knee replacements are widely available and covered by insurers.
The story said “joint implants have become more customized to suit individual patients, but a Billerica company is pushing the personalization trend further. ConforMIS Inc. uses 3-D printing and imaging software to more precisely tailor replacement joints.”
This seems to be a new trend although we weren’t able to find any independent research about whether customization leads to better for patients.
The story did not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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