A thoughtful perspective piece in JAMA Internal Medicine‘s “Less is More” series is entitled, “A Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scan: Need to Know vs. Nice to Know.”
The DXA scan is a test looking for signs of osteoporosis.
The piece is written by a woman physician who had turned 50 and was now facing a recommendation from her own doctor to “catch up on testing” she had not had. Key excerpt:
“I did not want to question my physician. The tests felt like evidence of her care, concern, and thoroughness; she wanted to make sure that she did not miss anything that might help me. I wanted to follow her recommendations. I wanted a guide who knew where I needed to go and what I would need along the way.
Unsurprisingly, my ECG scan result was normal. The DXA scan result placed me in the category of low bone mineral density, for which calcium and vitamin D and weight-bearing exercise are all recommended—as they would have been without the test result. While my insurance covered the cost of the DXA scan, I am not sure who benefited, beyond the manufacturers of the test.
When a physician suggests a test, it is easy for a patient to believe that it is important and necessary. It is easy to believe that the test result will tell us the right next step or will assure us that all is well. But the harder reality is that there is so much we just cannot know, that tests cannot make clear. The harder role for the physician is to help the patient understand that there will be uncertainty and that perhaps the best we can do is work on developing habits of healthy living. The harder explanation is about the limits and risks of tests.”
It’s worth noting that the author, Lorna Lynn, MD, works for the American Board of Internal Medicine, the folks who promote the Choosing Wisely campaign.
———————-
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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 (1)
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