There is little doubt that advances in CT imaging technology have revolutionized the way many diseases are diagnosed and monitored. However, rapidly expanding indications for the technology, including full body scans and lung scans, have raised concerns about its potential overuse. This story does a great job of outlining the problem of overuse of CT imaging and the implications of the harms of radiation exposure.
The story is notable for quantifying how many excess cases of cancer can be expected by the increase in radiation exposure. But given the speculative nature of the calculations of cancer risks, the story does a good job of providing the necessary cautions in interpreting these numbers.
The story avoids the tendency to sensationalize the risks outlined by the source articles. CT scans used primarily for screening tests are rightly criticized. On balance, this is a very insightful article.
The story does not discuss the costs of the scans.
The story may subtly oversell the benefits of treatment. It is not clear that the source articles provide good information about the number of surgeries avoided, difficult diagnoses made, or lives saved due to CT scanning. The story inaccurately states that "no-one questions the value of the tests for allowing doctors to quickly diagnose…problems." There are many problems, even those listed, that can be diagnosed with modalities other than CT that are less invasive, costly or harmful.
The story does a good job of describing the harms of radiation exposure due to CT scans. Notably, the story comments on how many excess cases of cancer could be explained by the radiation exposure and that some of the risk is easily avoidable: some scans are unnecessary.
The story does a good job of describing the available evidence that CT scans are harmful. The story details that the risk associated from CT scans is extrapolated from radiation exposures at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from industrial situations. One study cited in the story used a simulation (dummies receiving radiation in CT scanners.) The critics and proponents of the methodology are both given voice. The story mentions that studies using more definitive methods are ongoing. This is excellent detail and balanced analysis.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of cancer, or the risk from radiation exposure.
The story quotes multiple, independent experts who can provide differing perspectives.
The story mentions other kinds of tests, such as blood tests, MRIs or ultrasound.
Clearly CT scans are available.
The story clearly describes that CT scanning is not a new idea but the story speculates that it is being overused with many new indications and uses that may be unnecessary.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does 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.