A journalist wrote me: “Ack! Another rah rah rah robotic surgery article, this time in the Times.”
The blogging surgeon known as the Skeptical Scalpel tweeted:
ICYMI. Robotic surgery puff piece in the NY Times. http://is.gd/EjhZbe
What draws their ire?
A New York Times piece, “When Robotic Surgery Leaves Just a Scratch.”
It discusses some new robotic surgery approaches, including in children. It’s interesting. It clearly offers some potential.
But the story includes no data, no evidence of efficacy. Just generic, fawning, unquestioning promotion, either from the words of the writer or from quotes from true-believer-surgeons – such as:
Finally, toward the end, the story states:
Robotic systems, though, have yet to show that they are always worth the extra money they cost.
That cost, as the story explains, is $1.3 million to $2.2 million with potentially $60,000 or more for the “add-on” device featured.
Gee, it might be nice to attach some data to that kind of price tag and to the claims above. Or doesn’t the Grey Lady consider that news that’s “fit to print”?
Just go to the Skeptical Scalpel’s blog and enter “robotic surgery” in the search box to see some of the evidence questions one might raise.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
We wrote only about efforts that label themselves as “fact-checking” projects. You’ll see that if you read the piece.
Skeptical Scalpel ?
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.
Walter Lipman
November 26, 2012 at 10:30 amFrom the Skeptical Scalpel’s blog, this gem:
http://goo.gl/ANfOo
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