The concept of cardiac CT sounds like a great one: to be able to get high resolution images of the coronary arteries in a non-invasive way. One potential use of the scans would be to identify those without blockages to save them from getting the more invasive angiography procedure. Unfortunately, cardiac CT scans are being performed on those without symptoms or suspicion of heart disease, and in the absence of evidence to support its use in this population, the harms of the test (including radiation exposure) may not be worth its benefits.
According to the 2006 American Heart Association Guidelines, "For CT angiography, the higher radiation doses suggest the need for greater forethought when using these tests, and use of these higher radiation exposure tests in asymptomatic persons for screening purposes is not currently recommended." In particular, "Use of CT angiography in asymptomatic persons as a screening test for atherosclerosis (noncalcific plaque) is not recommended".
This story reports on a recent presentation of the results of a study comparing cardiac CT to angiography in high-risk individuals. The story accurately represents the availability, novelty, and costs of the scan. The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings.
By not exaggerating the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or "worried well". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial.
The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as the implications of false positive or false negative test results.
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of Cardiac CT by describing the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures.
The story provides the cost of the CT scan as well as angiography. However, the story should have discussed insurance coverage for the scans.
The story describes the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures.
The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as the implications of false positive or false negative test results.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study, including a criticism from one expert that the study "cherry-picked" patients to include in the study in order to maximize the findings.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or "worried well". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial.
The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings.
The story mentions angiography as the alternative to the heart CT.
The story clearly states that the CT scans are relatively new and available in many hospitals, however it is not clear how many hospitals have purchased these machines.
The story adequately describes the novelty of the scans.
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
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
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.
You might also like