The use of a robotic system for the surgical removal of fibroids (a procedure known as myomectomy) could, in theory, allow easier, less invasive access to difficult-to-remove fibroids that would otherwise only be reachable through a large incision. However, the relatively limited experience performing myomectomies with the robotic system means that little can be said about how the system compares in terms of safety and efficacy with standard surgical approaches. And serious economic concerns raise questions about whether the benefits of the system are worth the considerable additional expense.
This story does a good job of outlining the novelty and availability of the robotic system.
However, the story fails to adequately address the cost issue. Although the story describes how much the equipment costs and mentions that reimbursement is the same regardless of whether the equipment was used, this is not adequate information on costs. Because of insurance issues and the fact that the system is so expensive relative to traditional surgical approaches, this is important information that should have been covered in more detail.
Nor does the story adequately quantify the benefits of treatment or describe the potential harms. In fact, with such statements as "it’s hard to see the negative impact of new technology" and "the robot is very precise," the story appears to suggest that there aren’t any downsides.
The story also to adequately describe the strength of the available evidence to support the use of the robotic system. Specifically, it is not clear how strong the evidence is that the new system is as safe or effective as it is claimed to be. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the system to other myomectomy methods.
Finally, the story explained that the robotic device came on the market just 8 years ago, that Minnesota hospitals started using it just three years ago., and that there are already nine da Vincis in the state. But the story didn’t address the obvious followup questions: how many does a state or a community need? Who’s asking these questions?
Although the story describes how much the equipment costs and mentions that reimbursement is the same regardless of whether the equipment was used, this is not adequate information on costs. Because of insurance issues and the fact that the system is so expensive relative to traditional surgical approaches, this is important information that should have been covered in more detail.
The story does not quantify the benefits of the robotic system.
The story does not mention any potential harms of the robotic system. In fact, with such statements as "it’s hard to see the negative impact of new technology" and "the robot is very precise," the story appears to suggest that there aren’t any downsides.
The story does not adequately describe the evidence to support the use of the system for myomectomy. Specifically, it is not clear how strong the evidence is that the new system is as safe or effective as it is claimed to be. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the system to other myomectomy methods.
The story does not appear to exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of uterine fibroids or prostate cancer – the two conditions mentioned.
The story quotes multiple experts.
The story does mention open myomectomy and laparoscopic myomectomy as alternatives to the robotic system. However, the story should have mentioned other non-surgical options.
The story does a good job of describing the availability of the robotic system in the Minneapolis area (which is the target audience of the paper). The story rightly points out that it is a new system and as a result is only available in a few large hospitals. However, the story could have also mentioned that another part of the issue of availability is the limited number of surgeons with training and able to get access to the system to train.
The story clearly states that the technology is not a new idea (it was approved by the FDA in April 2005) but that it is only recently being used for myomectomy.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.
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.