Knees crippled by osteoarthritis sideline millions of Americans. While most folks seeking help are offered such treatments as physical therapy and steroid injections, this story describes another option: using radio frequency to “mute” the nerves in your knee that transmit the pain signals to your brain.
The story does a good job discussing side effects, and discussing costs of treatment. But when it comes to discussing the evidence, the story falls short. It doesn’t explain that the one study mentioned is an abstract of a talk given at a meeting, which is considered preliminary. Nor does it provide any specifics on how much the new technique relieved pain compared to the control group, or how that was measured. From what we can tell, there’s really not much high-quality data on this procedure–despite the FDA approval.
The FDA approved this treatment earlier this spring, and that means its use could spread rapidly, making accurate stories about it all the more important. (Approval is no guarantee of safety of effectiveness.)
Costs are indeed addressed.
Although the story makes clear that the process relieves pain, it offers little in the way of quantification. According to the one study mentioned, by how much did it help? How was that measured? That is particularly important here, as this procedure appears to reduce—but not necessarily eliminate—pain. The story does use verbs such as “eases” and “reduces,” but then it focuses on one patient who, after the procedure, seems to be pain-free. The text later does a good job of indicating that the pain reduction is relatively short-lived, lasting 6 months to a year.
Risks are identified.
However, we think it would have been worth pointing out that there is little scientific literature about applying this old technology to a new part of the body. So, it’s unclear what the eventual risks are.
Also, the article is not quite clear what radiofrequency ablation is doing: killing nerves, for at least 6 months. There could be permanent loss of nerve sensation, or maybe the nerves will grow back years later, either normally or in an altered state (which has happened in some other medical and surgical situations).
The story gives short shrift to details of the one study it cites, which compared the effect of cooled radio frequency ablation with steroid injections. In reality, the study has some issues. The story should have made it clear that this was a relatively small industry-funded study that hasn’t been published nor peer-reviewed and also wasn’t blinded (meaning participants knew which treatment they were getting).
Osteoarthritis in the knee can be debilitating and the story didn’t disease monger its severity or prevalence.
The story has several independent sources. However, the story missed a potential conflict of interest. According to ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database, one of the story sources consults for at least two major medical device companies that make products similar to the “Coolief” system described in the story. That source also received small amounts of cash (for food and beverages) from Halyard Health, which makes the Coolief system.
The text mentions treatment options and compares the radio frequency procedure with one of them.
Recent approval by the Federal Drug Administration means that the technique is not yet widely available, the story notes.
This use of radiofrequency treatment on arthritic knees does appear to be relatively new, although the technique has been employed to cope with a variety of other painful conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia, cancer pain, and spinal pain.
Although radiofrequency therapy is over 60 years old, it is not used very often, apart from some procedures by cardiologists to rewire the heart’s electrical system.
The story did not appear to rely on the news release.
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
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