We appreciate how the story placed appropriate caveats up high in the first and second sentences of the story, and followed that with cautious language from both the author (“We just wanted to see if this is feasible…”) and an independent expert.
This was not a bad model for how to report on research looking at new devices in small studies. The story provided cautions and some necessary context.
It seems that some cost estimate could have been projected by the device manufacturer which also funded the study.
But given the stage of the technology development we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and grade this N/A.
It would have been appropriate to note that the device requires a neurosurgical procedure along with implantation, both relatively expensive propositions
The story was appropriately cautious in describing the potential benefits based on what was observed in only 15 patients. The limitations were clearly presented.
The story was careful to explain:
“But any benefits need to be weighed against the risks. Besides false alarms and unnecessary anxiety, the implant itself can cause problems. In this study, three patients had serious complications, including one with an infection and one whose chest device moved and caused her pain. Two patients ultimately had the implants removed.”
The story quoted an independent expert saying “There are plenty of questions left” and then he detailed some of them.
The story also put “small pilot study” in the first sentence and “based on only 15 patients and the device worked far better in some than others” in the second sentence.
An independent expert source contributed important cautious perspectives. The fact that the study was funded by the device manufacturer and that several of the authoring researchers work for the company was disclosed.
We were pleased that the story briefly mentioned, “Epilepsy is usually managed with medication, but for 30 percent to 40 percent of people with the condition, drugs don’t keep seizures at bay. The new study included 15 people who were having at least two to 12 “disabling” seizures a month that were resistant to drug therapy.” But, we would have liked to have seen a comment or two about Vagal Nerve Stimulation (see http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/vns ) as an additional piece of information.
The story could have been more explicit about how far away from marketing approval such an approach might be. But we’ll call it satisfactory for at least including this from the independent expert quoted:
“This study is an important first step,” said Mehta, who was not involved in the research. “The next step would be to implant these in a larger sample of patients. And you need to see which groups of patients might be good candidates for this.”
There has been other research about implants/devices to control epileptic seizures. See our earlier comment on vagal nerve stimulation in the “Alternatives” criterion. The story could have easily given a brief overview of some of that competing research.
There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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