The use of three-dimensional optics in surgery has been studied for years. It could someday be proven to produce outcomes so good the technology is worth the extra cost. The device makes a legitimately interesting story, with obvious gee-whiz appeal.
But the CBS News segment on the technology ignores most important health journalism best practices. The result is a story that exaggerates benefits and provides virtually no information that can help a viewer understand its significance. To cite the most serious flaws:
The story does not indicate that 3-D surgery has been studied and in clinical use for over a decade. It does not say that the surgery itself–intranasal endoscopic surgery on the front of the brain–is routine.
The broadcast fails to mention how much the machine costs or where it is being used.
The segment cites no research that would indicate whether the machine produces better outcomes or carries any additional risks. This material is easily available and obviously germane.
The report does not include observations by an independent source. It depends entirely on a physician with a conflict of interest and a patient who had what appears to be a successful outcome.
The segment does not mention how much the instrument costs or what the bill would be for a procedure involving it.
Despite the significant body of published research on 3-D surgery, the segment does not cite any of it. The story suggests that the approach is unique as is the use of a 3-dimensional scope. While the 3-D scope is perhaps new, the surgical approach is a standard and has reasonably well described advantages over traditional open surgical approaches to base of the brain lesions. The successful outcome in the case presented is commonplace across the country in similar patients. The implied benefits of the 3-D scope may not in fact bear out after scientific investigation. A single successful case is no more demonstrative than is a single unsuccessful case.
The segment does not mention whether the equipment carries risks conventional surgery does not.
The segment cites no evidence to support the device’s use other than the surgeon’s enthusiasm and the single patient’s apparently successful outcome.
Minimally invasive surgical procedures, while offering the advantages of fewer complications and reduced recovery times, have had a mixed history. The minimally invasive approach described in this segment is used by many if not all academic medical centers in the country using standard endoscopic equipment. While there is evidence that the minimally invasive approach may provide for better recovery times and reduced morbidity, the advantages of a 3 dimensional view for the surgeon remain to be seen.
By citing only one example of an apparently successful surgery–on a frightening yet never specified brian tumor that put the patient’s vision at risk–the segment exaggerates the benefits of the device.
Sources include a physician who uses the device and a patient who appears to have had a successful outcome.
Neither of these sources is unbiased. It’s not clear whether the surgeon interviewed has a financial conflict of interest. But as the user of expensive equipment his hospital has purchased or is otherwise committed to, he is not in a position to evaluate its benefits objectively.
The segment does not indicate how the patient’s procedure would have been different using conventional methods. Presumably little, since the type of surgery itself is so widely practiced without the add-on of 3-D optics.
The segment does not indicate whether the 3-D surgical device featured is available anywhere other than the New York City hospital that employs Dr. Schwartz.
The story implies the device is novel, saying that "for the first time" doctors are using 3-D technology for brain surgery.
This is factually accurate but potentially misleading. As one device maker’s website shows, 3-D surgery on various body parts has been in clinical use and the subject of journal articles since at least 1996. This should have been mentioned.
The base-of-the-brain intranasal surgery itself has been used since the mid-90s at academic medical centers across the country. The use and outcome described are typical rather than extraordinary.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. A hospital press relase from July 11, 2008 touts the hospital as the first user of 3-D endoscopy on the brain. We do know that the story presented only on one source at one hospital.
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