On the USA Today website, Liz Szabo interviews cardiology experts Marc Gillinov and Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, authors of the new book, Heart 411: The Only Guide to Heart Health You’ll Ever Need. In the piece, Gillinov and Nissen say:
We suggest avoiding these tests:
Heart calcium scans. These tests expose patients to excessive radiation and have not been demonstrated to save lives.
Total body CT scans. These scans, which examine the heart and other organs throughout the body, involve huge doses of radiation and have not been shown to improve outcomes. The Food and Drug Administration has warned the public about this procedure.
Exercise stress tests, or treadmill tests, in patients without symptoms. The chances of a false positive test are high and an abnormal often leads to unnecessary heart catheterization, an invasive procedure in which long tubes are inserted through the blood vessels.
Some ultrasound examinations (echo tests). These should not be performed in healthy individuals and should be used only for those with other signs of heart disease, such as a heart murmur or heart failure. An echocardiogram, or ultrasound of the heart, should be used only for those with other signs of heart disease, such as a heart murmur or heart failure. Carotid ultrasounds, for example, are sometimes ordered in healthy people to determine if they have thickened walls of the artery. The problem with this type of screening test is that it can lead to unintended consequences. We strongly prefer to get a medical history, then measure the well-validated risk factors such as cholesterol and blood pressure.
Fancy cholesterol tests. Well-meaning physicians frequently order special cholesterol tests that measure cholesterol “particle size,” sometimes known as VAP or NMR cholesterol tests. These tests are expensive and do not improve outcomes. They are unnecessary.
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 (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.
Paul Scott
February 23, 2012 at 7:09 pmSmall particle tests may not be warranted for the general population but they likely offer more meaningful information than an LDL test.
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