I’ve reported many times on news organizations hyping medical technologies. But this past week, a medical journal – BMJ – did the same thing in its “news” section, presenting only the fantastic potential of robotic surgery without any evidence – any quantification – of potential benefits and harms and without any discussion of costs.
The BMJ “news” story was entitled, “Robotic prostatectomy transmitted live to engineers to promote collaboration.”
Read my letter and that of a British oncologist in response to that article. I wrote:
“…the story was completely devoid of any data.
We learn that robotic radical prostatectomies are much more common in the US than in the UK but we learn nothing about outcomes.
We learn that there are ethical issues but none is specified.
We learn that a urologist believes robotic surgery has several advantages. But those are not quantified. What does “better results” mean?
We learn that “patients recover more quickly” but we’re not told how many patients. We learn of “better cancer control” without any definition of that term.
Ditto for reported claims of more precision, “less collateral damage, resulting in less blood loss, faster recovery, and fewer complications.” No numbers.
I’m trying to teach my health journalism students, “No numbers? No story.” I hope they weren’t reading this week’s BMJ “news” section.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Aurel
April 3, 2008 at 6:50 pmSeveral weeks ago, I sent faxes, as the requested mode of communication, to a urologist in Dallas, to a urological hospital practice in Dallas, and to a urological hospital practice in Houston, in anticipation of my need for a prostatectomy I’m planning for January 2009. I asked each to tell me how many robotic procedures each physician has performed and how many each has performed in the past 3 months for patients like me within a range of Gleason scores and for localized cancer. As of this date, no one has acknowledged receipt of my fax, much less responded with any data. My hometown urologist, with whom I had a paid office visit tells me he’s done “about 40”, but says he doesn’t have any data on outcomes. The prostate industry thrives on a lack of data.
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