Our Review Summary
This story about a relatively new surgical technique called prostatic urethral lift did a good job talking to patients and physicians familiar with the procedure. However, since all the anecdotes and commentary were overwhelmingly positive, it may not be reflective of the true patient experience. We also think the story would have been more useful if it had provided more information on the various treatment options and how they compare and contrast–particularly as the evidence shows, and not just patient anecdotes.
Why This Matters
Frequent urination can be terribly inconvenient so if a simple, safe, and effective new treatment can be offered, it is likely to be very popular. Readers of this story need to know that there are alternatives, both surgical and non-surgical to the minimally-invasive prostatic urethral lift described here, and all carry pros and cons, risks and benefits.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Cost is mentioned, but somewhat indirectly. Stating that “insurers generally reimburse about $5,000 for the procedure,” is vague when ti comes to real costs. Learning that “Medicare covers it, though some private insurers do not,” also is not that useful for men who might have to pay out of pocket for the procedure. Still, the cost information is more than what we typically see.
Not Satisfactory
There is insufficient detail about the benefits and how long they last. We learn that at least one urologist who has become a convert to the procedure is “unsure how long the improvement will last.” The link to a study abstract adds a bit more detail, but its not discussed much in the story. We learn that the manufacturer-funded trial found “peak urinary flow have lasted so far for five years,” but no details on how this compares to controls. It is useful to know that “one in 10 patients ended up needing surgery anyway.”
Not Satisfactory
The minimally invasive surgery seems safer than other kinds of surgery, but without any specific details on the potential for harms, we can’t be sure. We are told that most patients experienced more frequent urination after the procedure, but that the improvements may take four weeks or so to be seen.
Not Satisfactory
The procedure was studied in a prospective, 5-year randomized trial but those details were not included in the story.
Satisfactory
The story did not disease monger. But it would have been stronger if it had reminded readers that some men with enlarged prostates may have no symptoms or don’t find them bothersome enough for a procedure.
Satisfactory
The story included at least one independent source, and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The story was heavy on positive patient anecdotes, which may not be reflective of the typical patient experience.
Not Satisfactory
There are alternatives to prostatic urethral lift yet only one was discussed with enough detail to be useful. We learn that the lift “does not improve flow as much as surgery,” but the “lift procedure and recovery are much quicker, with no hospital stay and fewer complications.” Those who might not be adequately served by the urethral lift can always “come back for surgery later.”
Satisfactory
We learn that “the first patients were treated in Australia by the end of 2005. Initial clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not come until 2013, but now more than half of the 30,000 patients treated to date are in this country,” according to the manufacturer’s chief executive officer Dave Amerson.
The story would have been stronger if it had discussed how many urologists can do the procedure.
Satisfactory
The story provides a lot of detail on how the device was invented and what sets it apart from other treatment options. However, we’re not sure why the story was written now–what’s the news here?
Satisfactory
The story does not appear to rely on a news release, though positive anecdotal testimonials predominated the piece.
Total Score: 6 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