The story describes a treatment called “the iovera system” that uses extreme cold to deaden nerves in the knee and temporarily alleviate pain. We give the story credit for discussing costs — something 70% of stories we look at fail to do — but the piece provides no other useful information for a consumer to judge whether this therapy may be helpful for them. It relies strongly on personal anecdotes without discussing any possible risks associated with the treatment or referencing any studies about how effective the treatment might be. The story simply does not support the sweeping statement in the headline that the treatment “instantly relieves knee pain.”
Knee pain is fairly common, with the CDC reporting that between 37 and 48 percent of U.S. adults over 60 years of age have osteoarthritis in one or both knees. And that pain can be debilitating, often leading to surgery. The CDC reports that there were 719,000 total knee replacement surgeries performed in the U.S. in 2010. All of this means that there are a lot of people who are interested in new treatments to address knee pain.
The story notes that each treatment costs approximately $1,000, that most insurance companies do not cover the procedure, and that the treatments need to be repeated at least every six months.
The story does not quantify benefits at all, offering only qualitative evaluations from two patients and one doctor who performs the treatment.
The story’s claim that the pain relief lasts “up to six months” is also suspect. We could find no published data about this treatment, but according to the company website, a clinical study of the device has been performed. It found that “70% of patients reported their pain relief effect continuing for 2 months” and “45% reported their pain relief effect lasting for 3 months.” Although six-month results aren’t mentioned, one can presume that only a minority of patients would experience relief lasting that long. The story failed to provide this larger context.
The story does not address potential harms in any meaningful way. Harms are mentioned only once, when the doctor who performs the treatments says that it is “very safe.” Even the company website notes that common side effects include “local pain, crusting, pigmentation changes, bruising and tingling.”
The story does not cite any research on the device, and notes that the iovera treatment is “cleared by the FDA” without providing any explanation of what that means. Readers will likely assume that this means the device has been evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, which is not the case at all. FDA “clearance” merely means that the device is “substantially similar” to some other device that’s already on the market, which is enough for the FDA to “clear” the device to be sold. The lack of supporting research may not be surprising, since the company behind the iovera system appears to have only begun recruiting participants for a clinical trial to evaluate its efficacy at addressing knee pain in October 2014.
In the first sentence, the story states that “most Americans have suffered minor to severe knee pain.” The story doesn’t explain where that number comes from, and it intimates that even occasional, minor knee pain may require medical treatment.
The only sources cited in the story are patients who have had a positive experience with the treatment and a doctor who offers the treatment in his practice. Having the sole medical voice come from an advocate for the treatment is problematic.
We’re looking for something positive to say about this story, so we’ll give credit for the mention of alternatives “such as physical therapy, surgery and medications.” We note, however, that these alternatives are not discussed in any detail and are not compared to the iovera system in any way — there is no comparison of how effective they are, how safe they are, or of how much they cost.
The story does not tell readers how widespread the treatment is or where it might be available. The only place readers will know the treatment is available is in one doctor’s practice in New York City. A glance at a corporate website showing where the iovera treatment is available shows that it is available at only a handful of practices in five states.
This product has undergone several iterations and has been cleared for use by the FDA for quite awhile. It was previously introduced as a treatment for wrinkles and is now being adapted for knee pain. The story doesn’t mention this.
While myoscience, the company behind the iovera system, has issued two news releases related to the treatment over the past year, this story does not appear to draw heavily from either of them. The story also quotes three sources not included in any of the releases.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Adam Trainor
February 10, 2015 at 4:26 pmNice expose. We should all be weary of any report that uses words like: miracle, instant, wonder, and any other superlatives. Nothing surprising about this news. It’s probably less of a comment on Fox News as it is our challenges with educating people on how to take care of their bodies. In this example Fox is just another mouth for the state of health care for Americans. We are more comforted by pills, surgeries, and other perceived “overnight solutions.” People would be less likely to tune-in if the news starting reporting that people need to start getting educated about their bodies, learn about their health resources, and get moving more. It’s just not sexy news. This article, however, is one of the good ones. Keep reporting.
George
February 16, 2015 at 2:00 pmThis is just a typical example of a media company “promoting” a product to its core audience. With the average age of viewership in the late 60’s, FOX News is replete with similar type of “advertising” (reverse mortgages are another stalwart on the station). Many of their viewers are health illiterate (as is most of the U.S. population), so reports such as these can easily sway individuals into believing the hype.
If you watch the video accompanying the article, the thing that stands out the most is the physical appearance of the patients profiled. Both are obese, with the woman being morbidly obese. The first line of defense should be to address their diets. A referral to a registered dietician would go a long way in addressing their knee pain, considering every pound of weight is four pounds of compressive stress across the knee joint. Encouraging more low-impact activity (predicated on any other physical limitations) and a check of their medication (for any side effects leading to increased hunger-weight gain) would also suffice. But why do all that when you can have some fancy device with nitrous oxide canisters deliver “treatment” (which probably cost a pretty penny).
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