As we pointed out in some separate examples just last week, the answer might be in whom you decide to interview, and in whether you hear from independent expert perspectives in your news stories.
On the one hand
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “New FDA-approved device helps doctors detect deadly melanoma skin cancer.” The story only interviewed a couple of doctors who are true believers and users of the system. No skeptics, no truly independent perspectives. And there were no questions raised about possible limitations in the use of the technology.
But on the other hand
The New York Times reported , “Dissent Over a Device to Help Find Melanoma.” Excerpts:
“This technology should still be considered to be in the developmental stage,” said Dr. Roberta Lucas, an instructor of clinical dermatology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “We are better off when the system supports doctors who are thorough and unhurried; who examine and listen carefully and who empower patients to practice good surveillance and sun protection.”
In fact, some members of an expert medical panel asked to review MelaFind a few years ago for the Food and Drug Administration warned that the device had the potential to give doctors and patients a false sense of security. While MelaFind can analyze small pigmented spots identified by dermatologists as having signs of melanoma, it is not designed to evaluate other problems: large melanomas, colorless melanomas or two other types of skin cancer — basal and squamous cell carcinoma.
Dr. Amy E. Newburger, a dermatologist in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was a member of that F.D.A. panel, told me that she was concerned that a doctor could inadvertently use MelaFind on a non-melanoma skin cancer, receive a score indicating that the spot was not irregular, and erroneously decide not to biopsy it. She voted against recommending the device for F.D.A. approval.
Some biostatisticians are also critical of MelaFind, saying the device can recognize a high percentage of melanomas correctly because it also falsely scores as positive so many non-melanomas — potentially prompting doctors to perform unnecessary biopsies.
To help me visualize that issue, Jason Connor, a biostatistician at Berry Consultants, a biostatistics consulting firm, compared the accuracy of MelaFind in distinguishing non-melanomas to a hypothetical pregnancy test which, used on 100 nonpregnant women, would mistakenly conclude that 90 of them were pregnant.
“My concern with MelaFind is that it just says everything is positive,” Mr. Connor said. A member of the F.D.A. panel, he abstained on a vote about whether the device’s intended uses outweighed the risks.
“I don’t think this helps an aggressive doctor,” Mr. Connor told me, “and unaggressive doctors could do just as well if they were more diligent without the device.”
The Cleveland paper wasn’t alone in failing to raise some of the tough questions.
A Cleveland TV station, WKYC, reported on the device with nothing but praise.
KDVR-TV, Denver allowed a doctor to call it the biggest advance in melanoma in his 26-year career – without raising any questions about that.
KVUE in Austin, Texas also failed to present an independent perspective in its story, even interviewing the device manufacturer’s CEO.
WTVF in Nashville was one of the stations using a syndicated news service’s story that claimed “The Cleveland Clinic has named the device one of its top medical innovations of 2013.” So did KFSN in Fresno.
Isn’t that special, how news of medical technology races across the US, unchallenged, unquestioning? Kudos for the New York Times effort to dig a little deeper.
By the way, Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat newsletter last week reported on a particular concern with dermatologists overtesting and overtreating when all the services are provided under their roof – standing to profit from all of that care:
“The number of times doctors order biopsies when they have a financial stake in the testing is increasing dramatically, with the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office estimating that in 2010, Medicare paid $69 million it could have saved had the number of self-referrals not been so high.” Yesterday, “a bipartisan group of lawmakers – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, R-Mont., ranking member Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa; House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander M. Levin, D-Mich.; and House Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif….berated physicians for over-ordering such procedures.” The GAO report indicated that “three specialties – dermatology, gastroenterology and urology – accounted for 90 percent of self-referred anatomic pathology services in 2010.”
When a nonpartisan report draws bipartisan attention, maybe it should get your attention, too.
——————————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
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.
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