Regardless the shape and impact of health care reform legislation, how new health care technologies are communicated to the American public is a major issue. And today a reader sent me a new example of how journalism must improve.
The Asbury Park (NJ) Press reports on a local medical center trumpeting its use of two technologies to treat lung cancer – Cyberknife and Super D. The story reads like a hospital news release, using phrases such as:
“puts hospital on the cutting edge”
“The intrusive ways of the past to diagnose and treat cancer — by using the needle and scalpel — are being replaced by the electronic hum of computers and the whir of robots.”
“Riverview is the only medical center in the state with Super D and the latest Cyberknife technology”
“We have the newest technology in the state”
“It also means treatment can begin sooner and have a better outcome”
Well, wait just a minute about outcomes. The story contains no data, no evidence, no proof of better outcomes.
In fact, hidden away at the very end of the story is this:
“Academic studies are now underway comparing the effectiveness of Cyberknife cancer treatment to conventional surgery.”
Usually, we want to wait until the studies are done and until the evidence is in before we proclaim that something is “curing the cancer” or that it’s “the wave of the future.” Otherwise that wave can become a tsunami of overuse and runaway costs – before we even know if what’s newer is better.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Gen
March 23, 2010 at 3:59 pmGood point made. Is it really better than surgery in some cases? Maybe. However it would be wise for people to know whether or not its the best for ‘your’ case. Second opinions are a good thing.
What I find interesting here, is that they didnt show the face mask. I researched cyberknife, and they use some kind of mask over a patient’s head to treat head cases. I think this hospital is inaccurately representing CK treatment by showing the treatment for a head case without showing the mask.
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