Another in the excellent Associated Press “overtreatment” series. Excerpt:
“Americans get the most medical radiation in the world, even more than folks in other rich countries. The U.S. accounts for half of the most advanced procedures that use radiation, and the average American’s dose has grown sixfold over the last couple of decades.
Too much radiation raises the risk of cancer. That risk is growing because people in everyday situations are getting imaging tests far too often. Like the New Hampshire teen who was about to get a CT scan to check for kidney stones until a radiologist, Dr. Steven Birnbaum, discovered he’d already had 14 of these powerful X-rays for previous episodes. Adding up the total dose, “I was horrified” at the cancer risk it posed, Birnbaum said.”
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 (8)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dr Wendy Sue Swanson
June 14, 2010 at 1:02 pmThis “overtreatment”is particularly important when it comes to caring for children. Children are at inherent risk–the effects of radiation are far more dangerous to a developing body and brain and may have long lasting effects. The Image Gently campaign http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/ is a thoughtful, careful and nice guide to reducing radiation exposure in children. This is a resource for parents, pediatricians, radiologists and technicians administering CT scans.
In pediatrics, less is more.
The amount of radiation in a head CT scan is the equivalent of about 100-250 chest x-rays! Only get CT scans on children when absolutely necessary and talk with your doctor about using the lowest dose possible. Direct them to Image Gently if they have any questions.
Read more at my blog here: http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildrens.org/guest-blog-image-gently-5-things-you-can-do/
Dana Vaughan
June 15, 2010 at 11:12 pmIn T.R. Reid’s film, “Sick Around the World”, he states that the Japanese get 3x as many medical scans as do Americans and he goes on to explain how Japan’s healthcare cost payment system makes scans far more affordable in Japan than in the U.S. This seems to contradict the above statement about Americans being the biggest consumer of scans. Where are the data coming from?
Gary Schwitzer
June 16, 2010 at 10:19 amDana,
I wrote to reporter Marilyn Marchione, who responded that the figure came from:
Radiology: Volume 253: Number 2—November 2009, page 527.
She also noted, “It could be that Japan is high in a particular category such as heart scans.”
Thanks for your interest and your scrutiny.
Gregory D. Pawelski
July 1, 2010 at 11:04 pmThe current issue of Oncology News International (June 2010, V 19, No 6) quotes a Duke University study of the use of high-tech cancer imaging, with one representative finding being that the average Medicare lung cancer patient receives 11 radiographs, 6 CT scans, a PET scan, and MRI, two echocardiograms, and an ultrasound, all within two years of diagnosis. A study co-author (Dr. Kevan Schulman) asks: “Are all these imaging studies essential? Are they all of value? Is the information really meaningful? What is changing as a result of all this imaging?”
Why is it that oncologists are so accepting of high tech, expensive imaging studies, yet so reluctant to consider the use of cell culture diagnostic tests? For one thing, clinical trials virtually always have time to disease progression as a primary endpoint. Without the imaging studies, one can’t get accurate time to progression data. So these are tests performed for the benefit of drug companies seeking new drug approval, for clinical investigators seeking contracts and publications, and for clinicians seeking an easy way to make clinical decisions (and, occasionally, seeking income enhancement).
In the absence of information provided by cell culture testing, oncologists have complete freedom to choose between a myriad of drug regimens. The proven basis on which they make these selections, by and large, is on the benefit a given regimen provides to the oncologist (or academic institution). Cell culture testing threatens this freedom of choice. There’s absolutely nothing in it for the oncologist or academic medical center (unlike, for example, imaging studies).
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