Recent increases in the rate of Caesarean birth (or C-section) births have drawn attention to the phenomenon of women electing to choose the procedure over vaginal birth for convenience, appearance, concern about incontinence, sexual function or other reasons. However, studies have shown that elective C-section carries more risks than vaginal birth and should be reserved for only those indications that require it. This story reports on the recent publication in The British Medical Journal of a Latin American study showing an increase in mortality risk to the mothers with elective C-section.
This story does a great job of drawing attention to the problem of the potential overuse of elective C-section. The story is careful to point out that the the problem is with elective C-section, not conditions for which C-section is indicated.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study, however the story could have done more to discuss the limitations of the study and others like it. For example, it can be misleading to directly compare the risks of the two procedures because women who have C-section may have pre-existing conditions that place them at higher risk. And the story could have explored the extent to which the hospitals in South American are comparable to practices in the US.
The story includes the note that "Caesarean can cost three times as much as normal birth."
The story provides information on the risks of C-section versus vaginal birth in absolute terms. [Because the story focuses on the harms of C-section, this criteria will be applied to the presentation of harms of the surgery, not the benefits.]
The story quantifies the risk of death in C-section versus vaginal birth. The story could have done more to describe other, more common risks, such as wound complications and infections.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study, however the story could have done more to discuss the limitations of the study and others like it. For example, it can be misleading to directly compare the risks of the two procedures because women who have C-section may have pre-existing conditions that place them at higher risk. And the story doesn’t explore the extent to which the hospitals in South America are comparable to practices in the US.
The story is clear that there are clear indications for which Caesarean birth is appropriate but that the overuse of the elective procedure is concerning.
The story quotes multiple sources, however only two of them are clinical experts, the others are authors of books or filmmakers.
The story clearly mentions vaginal birth as the alternative to C-section.
Clearly Caesarean birth is available.
Clearly C-sections are not new.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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.