“Under the glare of an operating theatre lamp….”
Here it comes: another drooling, fawning news story about robotic surgery – this time from The Guardian in the UK under the headline, “Newcastle hospital’s £2m robot transforms medical operations.”
It was surprising to see how unquestioning the story was.
The subheadline: “Dexterity of Da Vinci robot allows surgeons to operate with more precision and remove cancerous tissue that is hard to reach.”
Yes, but are the outcomes any better?
From the story: “The robot is already used for heart bypass operations and to remove cancers throughout the body, including those in the lungs, throat, prostate, bladder, spleen and colon. The next specialty to adopt the robot surgeon will be gynaecology later this year.”
Yes, and where are the data for those procedures?
“Cancer operations seem to be more successful, because surgeons can see tumours better and remove tissue more easily.”
Seem to be more successful? How are readers or patients supposed to judge what that means?
The UK has several dozen robotic surgery systems; the US has probably 1,500. So we’re more accustomed to the hype. And we have more experience from which to raise more questions. Some of these are captured in the search results of things we’ve written about the robotic systems in the past.
Meantime, a paper published in the journal Surgical Innovation – “The impact of marketing language on patient preference for robot-assisted surgery” – describes a little experiment. 38 patients were asked to make two treatment decisions between robotic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery. One time, the robotic procedure was described as a “state-of-the-art, innovative new technology” – the marketing frame. The other time it was termed a “promising new technology, which has not been used extensively and with research regarding its safety and effectiveness ongoing” – the evidence-based frame. The methodology used is more thoroughly explained in the paper.
The results? No surprise:
The researchers conclude:
“Our findings suggest that marketing strategies unrelated to the presentation of potential risks and benefits of a surgical technology may influence patient preference…This effect may be contributing to rising trends in the number of robot-assisted surgery procedures performed.”
They point out that “the evidence in favor of robot-assisted surgery is controversial” and “Robotic surgical systems typically cost between $1 million and $2.5 million, with $100, 000 to $200,000 in annual maintenance fees.”
Take home message: “When patients are confronted with decisions regarding their care, they have a number of resources available to them. Some of these resources misrepresent evidence relating to risk and benefits.”
As we’ve pointed out many times on this blog, it’s not only marketing messages that misrepresent the evidence. Sometimes it’s also the supposedly independently-vetted news stories that misrepresent – or totally ignore – the evidence. And that’s a tragic abdication of journalistic responsibility.
—————————–
Follow us 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