This Wall Street Journal story describes surprising news that a very common procedure– inserting a stent to open a blocked blood vessel — does not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease.
One strength of the story is the detailed description of the study itself and in finding outside sources to critique aspects of the study. We do think the cost of the procedure was worth discussion, as well as the potential harms, but they were not addressed in this story. These points were raised in the New York Times story, which we also reviewed.
Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting — common, but expensive — is a prime example of over-treatment.
The story does not mention the cost of stent insertion, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
The story describes the main outcome measure — how long subjects could exercise on a treadmill before experiencing pain — and the change in exercise duration — a 28 second improvement after stent insertion versus 12 second improvement after sham surgery. Readers are told that no statistical difference exists between those averages.
The story does not mention harms of the procedure, which should be a factor in weighing the risks and benefits of any intervention.
The story describes the study’s size and methods and goes into some depth about how the sham procedure can control for placebo effects. Limitations were discussed, as well. The story also provides some critiques from outside sources, including the fact that study subjects, with only one major blockage, do not represent the majority of patients to whom doctors recommend stents.
No disease mongering here. It was good to see the story discuss the concerns around over-use of stents.
The story quotes one of the study authors and authors of an accompanying commentary in the journal, The Lancet. The reporter also sought comment from stent makers, who were mostly critical of the study — but these potential conflicts were made clear to readers.
The story, in describing the study, makes clear that management of angina pain with medication is equally effective in these kinds of patients.
The story makes clear that stent insertion is widely available and frequently done.
The story makes clear that what is novel about this research is the use of a placebo group whose participants underwent procedures but didn’t receive a stent.
The story goes well beyond what is contained in the news release from the host institution, Imperial College.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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