Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

Study questions efficacy and safety of knee injections

Rating

1 Star

Categories

Study questions efficacy and safety of knee injections

Our Review Summary

This is he-said-she-said health care journalism that applies no critical analysis and is not helpful for readers.

 

Why This Matters

Whether the meta-analysis is sound or not – and whether the US orthopedist’s objections are sound or not – relies on a critical evaluation of evidence – which is something this story didn’t provide.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No discussion of cost.  One estimate we quickly found online put the cost at about $1500 per knee – perhaps without insurance coverage.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story only discussed the Swiss meta-analysis conclusion of “minimal benefits and potential for harm.” Yet it allowed a US orthopedist to claim that “This is most effective in relatively younger patients, 40 to 50 to 60 year olds, and…in people with mild to moderate forms of the disease.”  Neither statement is backed up by any numbers.

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

Not Satisfactory

Again, the story states that the meta-analysis found “potential for harm.”  Further, it reported:

The most common side effects patients undergoing viscosupplementation may endure are flare-ups –  where the knee becomes hot and swollen within 24 hours after the injection – and effusions, where excessive joint fluid collects inside the knee.  The researchers in Switzerland reviewed the existing studies and concluded that viscosupplementation was associated with an increase in these and other adverse events.

But there was no description of how often this was seen – making the issue almost useless to readers. Is it 1 in 100 patients?  10 in 100?  50 in 100?

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

Not Satisfactory

No critical analysis.

It positions a 177-study meta-analysis against the opinion of one doctor.

 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering of knee osteoarthritis.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

While some data (not much) is cited from the Swiss meta-analysis, no one from that research team was interviewed.

The only interview weight was given over to a US critic.  Why?  How was he chosen?  Why was he given this platform?

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

No meaningful comparison of data were provided.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story never explained the availability of the viscosupplementation approach.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Applicable

No claims of novelty were made.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have relied on a news release.

Total Score: 1 of 8 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.