Headline: “CT scans may pose cancer risk, new research indicates: Doctors, patients should weigh risks vs. rewards of medical imaging.” Good infographics in the paper and online (see below). And a sober ending:
“And some doctors who own scanning equipment have a financial stake in diagnostic imaging. Research shows that doctors who own machines perform two to seven times more imaging tests than those who don’t, said Dr. Vijay Rao, chair of radiology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.
Moreover, “the physicians who own this equipment and order the tests have generally had no training in radiology and little understanding of the complexities of radiation dosing” and its attendant health risks, Rao said. “For patients, this is absolutely the perfect storm.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Greg Pawelski
March 8, 2010 at 12:27 pmI remember well how much my oldest brother had to train in radiology to know and teach it well. I was amazed years ago when I found out that physicians who own this equipment and ordered the tests did not necessarily have the training in radiology and very little understanding of its complexities. Indeed, the “perfect storm.” Then I found out that some night-shift (our time) in India was reading my wife’s scans so her physician could have the results the next day. Geesh!
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