HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Study: CT scans rule out heart attacks faster
November 18, 2009
Well-organized story that could have been improved by noting the limitations of drawing conclusions from scientific meeting talks, and by comparing radiation risks of the two approaches studied.
Our Review Summary
This was a well organized story explaining the results of a study comparing two approaches for determining whether patients who present at the emergency room with chest pain are actually having a heart attack.
This story could have been improved with a few edits.
- It does not comment on the limitations on drawing conclusions from study results that have only been presented at a conference and have not been subjected to peer review.
- It never listed the radiation risks of standard testing – only that of CT scans. It compared CT with mammograms and dental x-rays but that's not what's being compared here.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story compared cardiac CT and radioactive dye for the diagnosis of heart attack in individuals who presented with chest pain in the emergency room. While the story stated that CT scans are "increasingly used" and that the study was in 16 big medical centers, we aren't given any sense of how widespread the use is actually is and no sense of what happens beyond "big medical centers."
The story included cost estimates for both treatments.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
That said, since a numeric estimate of the number of people who go to the emergency with chest pain was given, it would have been helpful to provide a comparable estimate for the percentage that actually are having a heart attack rather than putting this as 'a small fraction'.
While the story states that a more definitive study is underway, it does not comment on the limitations on drawing conclusions from study results that have only been presented at a conference and have not been subjected to peer review.
The story provides a somewhat confusing and overly complicated picture of the risks of the CT scans without putting the risks into context with the standard diagnostic procedures. While there is a detailed listing of radiation exposure to the CT scan, no information is provided on the burden of the standard testing. Noting the radiation exposure in millisieverts without comparative information does little to inform the reader of the relative risks of the two approaches studied. The link between radiation exposure and the risk of developing cancer is perhaps beyond the scope of the story. A simple citation (for example - http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/ucm115329.htm ) would have helped the readers better understand the size of the risk.
The increasing use of CT scans was clear in the story.
The story notes there was no difference in the diagnostic value of the two approaches but does note a difference in time and costs.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
The story does provide comments from experts in the field not associated with the study.
The focus of the story was a study of different options for heart attack imaging tests.
Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.