These are actual headlines from newspapers across the US on the DaVinci robotic surgical system:
Robot doctor – surgery of tomorrow
Da Vinci puts magical touch on the prostate
Cancer survivors meet lifesaving surgical robot
Robotic surgeon’s hands never tremble
Da Vinci is code for faster recovery
Surgical Maestro
DA VINCI ROBOT IS SURGERY WORK OF ART
Hospital hopes robot surgery will lure patients
The last one is closest to the truth.
We reviewed another one today on HealthNewsReview.org.
It’s hard to understand how so many stories could be so fawning, drooling over new technology, without discussing evidence of harms and benefits, which is limited.
As we said in our review of the latest story:
“(The story framed) the procedure like playing video games – “It’s like shooting at space ships.” Even though the surgeon interviewed said this, it would have been interesting to get a primary care doc’s reaction to this comment. In fact, any independent source would have been appreciated.
Legitimate questions can and should be raised about any new medical technology. This story raised few, but let true-believer-surgeons promote their pet technology. One said he “loves his robot.”
Even with prostate cancer, for which robotic systems have been used most often, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says there isn’t enough research yet to tell us how well robotic surgery works compared with other treatments.”
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.
Comments are closed.
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