The report accurately reflects the implications of the explosive growth of CT scanning that carries a higher radiation dose than many other x-ray examinations. The news story does an efficient job of discussing the dilemma of how to approach a valuable diagnostic test with a new appreciation of risks.
Where it falls short, however, is in providing a better context for the viewer. What type of study gave rise to the report? This was a statistical estimation of risk, extrapolating from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. How confident should the viewer be given this method? What are the risks to the individual of a CT scan, and how many extra cancers are we really talking about? Can the benefits of this test (versus alternatives) be quantified? Finally, identifying disinterested experts in this highly-technical field to put this dilemma into perspective would be helpful.
The story mentioned that CT scans are faster and better at diagnosing certain problems than are other types of imaging. It did not, however, provide information about the costs of various types of imaging or whether there were differences in terms of costs covered by insurance.
Since the story focused on the harms of the approach, quantifying the benefits of CT scans is not imperative in this case.
The article fails to flesh out the quantification of the effect under study, namely additional risk of cancers. While the source study reports on "attributable risk" of cancer and cancer-deaths due to CT scanning, it would be helpful for the viewer to know what this means in terms of numbers of cancers and risk to the individual.
The story mentioned that it was reporting on information in a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine. However they did not report on the nature of the study. They did not mention the methods used to estimated the additional risk due to CT radiation exposure. The source article mentions that a more definitive prospective observational study is ongoing. This story should have pointed out the possible limitations of the study.
The story reported that the article it discussed estimated that the percentage of cancer caused by CT scans will increase from 0.4% to 2.0%. It did not, however explain that the content was extrapolated from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses.
It would have been useful to provide a framework to understand the relative significance of the reported on increase in number of cancers. How does it compare, for example to the numbers of cancers due to cigarette smoking?
The reporter interviewed two sources in the story. One was the first author of the article being reported on. One appeared not to be involved in the study reported on. It would have been helpful to clearly identify the doctors beyond their names to explain why they were interviewed.
Two other scanning methods -MRI and ultrasound – were briefly mentioned.
The story did not include information about availability of CT scans (i.e. in hospital setting, in free standing imaging centers). However, the point of the story was that the technology is over used. While not meeting our usual standard of describing availability, the context of the news spot makes this less important.
Although the story mentioned that patients ought to make sure that the doctor gives you ‘the least possible dose’, it did not inform the viewer that this option is not available on all CT equipment.
The story was clear that it wasn’t reporting on a new approach but rather on the increased use of an existing diagnostic method.
While mentioning that ‘many of these CT scans are unnecessary’ the story did little in terms of better enabling a viewer to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary scans.
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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