Our Review Summary
No discussion of costs, or of outcomes data (benefits or harms). Only one positive patient anecdote with no explanation of whether her result was representative of what’s been seen in any other patients. There was no independent perspective provided.
Why This Matters
The story illustrates the difficulty in reporting on a new device and new implant procedure that has not become a mainstream practice. Much scientific data may not yet have been published. If this were the case, the story could have explicitly stated so and alerted the reader on the lack of data currently available.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of costs. Cost of any new device is important as is insurance coverage. Neither are addressed in the story, an oversight we find difficult to understand. According to the manufacturers website the cost of the surgery and the device in $33,000. Insurance does not cover the device at the moment. The battery, said to need replacing every 7 years, costs approximately $6,000 and may need to be performed as early as every 3 years depending on usage per day and other factors. Again, these costs are not covered by insurance.
Not Satisfactory
The story provides no information about potential harms of the surgery (requiring general anesthesia) or of the device once implanted. The study reported ongoing adverse events related to the device and the surgery including dizziness, taste disturbances, facial weakness/paralysis, ear pain, tinnitus (ringing in the ear) and middle ear effusions (build up of fluid).
Not Satisfactory
Only two sources are cited in this story – a patient who underwent the procedure and her surgeon who was trained by the device’s manufacturer. Furthermore, all of the evidence for the implant’s effectiveness is strictly anecdotal. There is no mention of any quantitative data to support their claims.
Satisfactory
The article does not provide much information on the conditions leading to damage to the inner ear, or to nerves from the inner ear to the brain. More background and context on these disorders would have been welcome in this case.
Not Satisfactory
The article appropriately points out that the surgeon was trained by the device’s manufacturer, Envoy Medical Corp. An independent source would have greatly helped to put the implant’s effectiveness into perspective.
Not Satisfactory
The story briefly mentions hearing aids, but the article does not go into detail about other alternatives to surgery.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story mentions that the Esteem implant is FDA approved, it is not clear why Dr. Marzo is the only surgeon in the entire Chicagoland area authorized to implant the device. Is this typical of other cities? Why is the procedure not more widespread?
Satisfactory
According to the FDA, “Esteem is the first totally implantable hearing system used to treat moderate to severe hearing loss caused by a defective inner ear function.” The article could have made this fact clearer, but states that this implant, a prosthetic inner-ear stimulator, differs from a hearing aid, which “amplifies sounds.”
Not Satisfactory
The story does not use the exact wording from a Loyola University Health System news release, but the content and language are similar. Same patient. Out of 40 patients implanted at Loyola, why did the story use the same patient as the one profiled in the news release? There was no new information or sources in the story than what appeared in the news release. For that reason, we rule this unsatisfactory.
Total Score: 2 of 10 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