July 23, 2013
Articles in JAMA Int Med suggest echocardiography and bone densitometry overused
It’s interesting how journalists may jump all over featured articles in medical journals, while failing to report on others in the same journal with common themes.
Such is the case with:
- A great deal of news coverage of echocardiography papers in JAMA Internal Medicine:
- But – as of this writing – no mainstream news media coverage of a research letter published online on the same day, ” ‘Due’ for a Scan: Examining the Utility of Monitoring Densitometry.” Its conclusion:
- “Our data indicate that clinicians frequently order monitoring DXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) scans out of a perception that they are due and rarely make changes in treatment based on the results. Even when DXA showed a significant decrease in BMD (bone mineral density), treatment changes were uncommon. We are aware of no other studies that have assessed clinician rationale for ordering monitoring DXA or treatment changes that follow interpretation of the results. …
How often monitoring DXA should be used is uncertain, although finite health resources and our obligation to avoid unnecessary interventions require us to reconsider routine use of monitoring DXA among average-risk women who are receiving treatment for low BMD.”
—————————-
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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.
Comments are closed.
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