New Laser Aims to Zap Cellulite at the Source

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Deep in the story, a company-funded study of 10 (!) women was discussed – resulting in “skin that was 25% thicker after a year.”  What does that mean? What is the true benefit of that?   The story says doctors graded cellulite reduction as “good to excellent.”  In all 10 women?  Was this a subjective judgment?

Then the story cites unpublished data from a company-financed trial trial.  Might as well have been a news release.  Hardly a good source of evidence to cite at this point.

By the end, there really was no good quantification of benefit.

Interestingly, the story provides no information about what the subjects thought about the results.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Potential harms were mentioned:

Cellulaze leaves tiny scars—about two millimeters long—which fade with time, surgeons say. Typically, compression garments are recommended for at least two or three weeks to prevent fluid buildup. And there will be bruises, so patients typically need to wait three to six weeks before venturing out in a bathing suit, surgeons say.

The procedure can cause a buildup of fluid in the area that has been treated, which can last for months and needs to be drained regularly by a doctor.

In a written statement, Cynosure says “a few” patients in early trials had the buildups, called seromas, adding that they need to be drained to prevent infections and other complications. The company says it has since lowered the recommended laser dosage and it isn’t aware of any seromas since the device hit the U.S. market.

But none of these harms was quantified, so the scope of the potential harm wasn’t clear.  What does it actually mean when the story uses vague terms such as “typically”…”can cause”…”a few patients” ?

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

One independent perspective came from a dermatologist who said “”we need more clinical experience before we can make any definitive statements as to the efficacy of the device.”

But the rest of the story was cheerleading in its failure to explain or evaluate the evidence:

• failing to point how laughably small is a company-funded study of 10 women
• failing to point out the folly of citing data from a company-funded trial that is not published

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

Pretty egregious disease-mongering – both in what the story said and it what it didn’t say.

What it said:

Bathing-suit season is here and with it, anxiety over cellulite. A new laser device that burrows under the skin is getting praise from some doctors who say it gives more dramatic and longer-lasting results than previous treatments, but others caution that more research is needed.

Cellulite is a dimpled, uneven appearance of skin caused by fat underneath. It affects some 85% of women and about 5% of men.

What it didn’t say:

• It didn’t have one word about why/whether cellulite needs to be treated.
• It didn’t cite the source of the data for how many people are affected.  And of those supposed 85% of women and 5% of men, are they ALL considered candidates for treatment?  And if so, by whom?  With what vested interest?

Finally, the story described the “battle” with cellulitis, which conjures up images of fat cells being taken on by light sword-armed dermatologists to save humanity from the scourge of dimpled thighs. Battle?  Really?

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

In a practice that is far too common in such stories, this one mentioned alternatives but waved them off as ineffective without citing any data.

Until recently, the main treatments to battle cellulite have been external treatments such as creams and radio-frequency and massage devices. The creams are largely ineffective and the devices have a modest effect that typically lasts about six months, doctors say.

Meantime, this entire story was based on two company-funded studies – one tiny and one unpublished!!!