CT scanning, among other imaging technologies, have revolutionized how we diagnose and monitor many diseases. However, ever expanding indications and uses for the technology has led to a dramatic increase in the number of scans performed every year, which has led some to wonder if it is now being overused and if the risk from exposure to radiation is worth the benefits. This story reports on a review article published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine on the state of the extent of the radiation exposure issue.
The story adequately describes the availability and novelty of CT scanning. It does not engage in disease mongering. The story does a good job of describing the risk from radiation exposure. The story could have mentioned other potential harm of overuse of the CT scans, such as overdiagnosis, incidental findings and the dangers of false-positive or false-negative results.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence, nor does the story mention the cost of the scans, an important concern given how widespread and common they are. Finally, the story does not quantify the harms of radiation exposure. How many additional cases of cancer could be explained by the increase in CT scanning?
The story does not mention the cost of the scans, an important concern given how widespread and common they are.
The story does not quantify the harms of radiation exposure. How many additional cases of cancer could be explained by the increase in CT scanning?
The story does a good job of describing the risk from radiation exposure. The story could have mentioned other potential harm of overuse of the CT scans, such as overdiagnosis, incidental findings and the dangers of false-positive or false-negative results.
The story does not discuss the strength of the available evidence that CT scans raise the risk of cancer. The story refers to the article in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, which is just a review article.
The story quotes an independent expert in addition to the lead author of the new article.
The story mentions conventional X-rays, ultrasound and MRI as alternative technologies to CT scanning. The story could have provide more content on the pros and cons of the different approaches and could have mentioned that not all cases need to have imaging.
By describing the CT scans as "routine", the story implies that CT scans are widely available.
The story indicates that CT scanning is not a new idea but that the utilization of the test has increased dramatically.
The reporter covered the conference where the paper was presented. He also interviewed an independent expert, so it’s safe to assume the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.