April 2, 2010

Urology treatment studies often minimize harms. So do news stories!

Posted By

Tags

Reuters Health reports on a study in the Journal of Urology that concludes that studies “of new urological treatments frequently don’t include full information on their potential harms.” Excerpt:

“We found considerable deficiencies in harm reporting that do not seem to be improving with time,” Dr. Rodney H. Breau of Ottawa University Hospital in Canada, and his colleagues say. Without this information, they add, “it is impossible to make strong recommendations for or against a treatment.”
…
“These findings, the researchers conclude, “suggest the need for reporting standards for harm in urological journals. Improvements in adverse event reporting would permit a more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based urological practice.”

So studies minimize harms. And our work has shown that news stories about studies further minimize harms.

Sing along with me: “And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!”

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.

roshan

April 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm

I see PSA’s risin’, I watch prostates grow
I see my business bloom for me and you
I love prostatectomy, I love biopsies yo’
There is pretty penny in surgery, don’t let the de Vinci go
They’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world
Yes, I think to myself, what a wonderful world!

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.