This news story uses a recent meta-analysis of already-published research as the news hook to review the pros and cons of arthroscopic knee surgery to treat both acute and chronic knee pain.
The article overall leaves thoughtful readers with a “think twice or thrice” take home message if they are considering arthroscopy, or told by a physician to have it.
The story could have done a better job discussing the evidence for and against this common surgery. It also mostly misses emphasizing a key point in the published research that for the vast majority of patients who undergo arthroscopy when they have both degenerative disease and tears in the knee’s cushioning tissue, exercise works just as well.
Given the rare but potentially serious risks of arthroscopy (infection and blood clots, for example, as noted in the article) and the lengthy recovery and rehab (around six weeks of limitation and therapy), stories like this one are important to help the public understand the serious limitations of arthroscopy, and to avoid the lure of a promised but unlikely quick surgical “fix” for pain. That lure is substantial, given that what often works better over time is serious weight loss, exercise and other lifestyle changes that most people find difficult at best.
Although the article puts an overall price tag on arthroscopy nationwide, the reader will not learn what a typical arthroscopy costs, whether most or all are covered by insurance (including Medicaid and Medicare) and the comparative costs of cortisone injections, NSAIDS, life style changes and knee replacement surgery.
The article is data-light with respect to numbers. The BMJ meta-analysis had a very helpful infographic that details in quantified terms what the measured benefit for arthroscopic surgery is versus conservative management.
The article adequately covers the risks of arthroscopy, noting that the more serious ones are rare.
Although as noted in the summary above, the thoughtful reader will “get” the “be careful what you ask for” message, the article is absent much information about how many patients and institutions the mega-analysis covered; what co-factors were involved in the success or failure of the procedures; how standardized (or not) the diagnostic criteria were; and what the flaws and weaknesses were in the new analysis. Much of this can be found very easily in the BMJ meta-analysis.
There are several sources of quotes and information, and we did not detect any conflicts of interest.
Alternatives are duly noted, and are an important part of the story.
The articles makes clear, if not explicit, that arthroscopy for knee pain is widely available and overused.
The article does a good job explaining that’s what novel here: The course reversal provided by the evidence.
We did not find a news release for this story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
In war, the first casualty is usually the truth.
@garyschwitzer https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1245315616866795521
Analysis of how unvetted rough-draft #COVID19 "studies" called preprints are credulously given the same weight in the media as peer-reviewed science published in established journals. Reminder why @garyschwitzer and his website are such important reads for journos and the public. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1245315616866795521
Whether you’ve heard of preprints or not, this article explains current context. We see strong caveats lacking in news stories trumpeting preliminary #COVID19 research in preprints. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/04/strong-caveats-are-lacking-as-news-stories-trumpet-preliminary-covid-19-research/
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