My former health journalism grad student, Hiran Ratnayake of the Wilmington (DE) News Journal, reports “Robotic surgery gains ground in Delaware hospitals; Not all convinced new technique is best option.”
Excerpts:
“The robot is the classic example of where good quality studies of their effectiveness compared to other available interventions have never been done,” said Dr. Sean R. Tunis, an internist and founder of the Center for Medical Technology Policy, a Baltimore headquartered think tank that evaluates the benefits and costs of medical technologies.
…
“It’s one of those technologies where the enthusiasm has not been matched by the comparative studies,” Tunis said. “And they’re not going to magically appear now.”
…
Claims by some urologists that da Vinci leads to fewer cases of incontinence and impotence have “not been shown whatsoever” in medical literature.”
One criticism: The DelawareOnline.com website produced a video to accompany the piece, but the video is 100% cheerleading for the technology with none of the caveats that appear in the text story.
Contrast Ratnayake’s appropriate healthy skepticism with that of the gee-whiz breathlessness of this Washington DC local station story on another emerging technology.
Discusses only benefits.
Nothing about harms.
Nothing about data, evidence of effectivness.
Nothing about costs.
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.
Walt
July 22, 2011 at 7:10 pmReceived this link from a daily search from Google… Your comments about Cyberknife and NanoKnife do not make clear that they are two entirely different procedures. Suggest anyone with interest in either do searches on their own to make a knowledgeable decision if either treatment makes sense to them.
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