Another example of fawning coverage of medical technology.
Another example of obsequious news on the DaVinci robotic surgical system, about which I’ve written earlier. (In fact, an earlier post just this week about the President playing with a robot at the Cleveland Clinic.)
A story in The Oklahoman reports on a university medical center’s new DaVinci robotic surgical system for prostate cancer.
It failed to report on the limited evidence to support this approach. The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality states that there hasn’t been enough research to know how this approach compares with others.
It also failed to look at the apparent burgeoning medical arms race in Oklahoma City – just for prostate cancer much less anything else. One center is bragging about its latest generation robot. Another center is bragging about its even more expensive proton beam therapy.
Wouldn’t that be a good story?
How local newspapers deal with issues of medical technology assessment, of community ascertainment of need, of resource allocation. of costs, of evidence is vital to public understanding of why we spend more than any other country on health care without the outcomes to show for it. Stories can educate or they can advertise. This one falls in the latter category.
(Hat tip to Craig Stoltz, from whom I borrowed the “wide-eyed new-technology-in-town” phrase, and who helped with the review of the story in question.)
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.
Patrick Driscoll
July 29, 2009 at 12:18 pmGary, Agreed. The adoption of new technology too often is accompanied by fixation on features rather than cost-effective benefits. Since I have been covering medical technology developments (too many years), I have harped on the idea that medical device solutions to healthcare problems are imperfect, but they are often available here and now while the “perfect” solutions offered by biotechs (e.g., “rational therapeutics”, gene therapies, etc.) continue to remain out of reach. My predilection is for solutions to disease where either no solution currently exists or where existing alternatives are inadequate. So, while I favor device technologies, and even some expensive ones involving capital equipment (e.g., gamma knife, laparoscopy systems, etc.), I do so out of the “lack of adequate alternative” consideration. When I see DaVinci systems discussed with wide-eyed infatuation, I am just flabbergasted that they aren’t recognized for what they are — big money pits draining the healthcare system. That isn’t to say that there aren’t clinical applications that meet the necessary criteria — no alternative treatment or offering a significantly improved outcomes that consider the added cost. There are complex procedures (mostly neuro, in my opinion) that seem to fit this.
Without producing clinical benefits that either don’t exist otherwise or are simply more cost effective than alternatives, expensive new technologies just don’t belong in this system.
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