Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a less invasive technique for removing cancer lesions and large polyps in the lower sigmoid colon and rectum. TEM offers potential advantages to the standard abdominal approach, such as a lack of an abdominal incision and faster recovery. However, to date there have been no large clinical trials comparing TEM to standard approaches.
The story clearly states that the availability of TEM is limited because few surgeons are trained to perform the surgery and that TEM has been around for a while but is only being recently used in the US. The story does not overstate the prevalence or seriousness of colon cancer or large polyps, thereby avoiding disease mongering. The story accurately points out that not even all of the large polyps are in fact cancer but that they will generally progress to cancer over time.
However, the story only quotes one expert. The story should have quoted multiple experts who could have provided some perspective. The story does not quantify the benefits of TEM, either in terms of safety or effectiveness. Nor does the story mention the costs of the procedure, which could be substantial.
The story mentions studies showing that TEM is effective, but there is no discussion of the strength of the available evidence, how these studies were performed and what questions remain about TEM. Most importantly, however, the story does not mention any harms of TEM, which makes it sound like the procedure has no drawbacks. While it is true that TEM is less invasive, there is still a risk of bleeding, perforation, and the need for repeat procedures.
In many cases with new procedures the risks of the procedure are not well known (either because the pioneers are exceptionally skilled, or because there have not been enough cases to detect rare harms). When the new procedure is then adopted, we see a higher risk as less well-trained providers use it.
For that reason, it is absolutely critical to have studies showing its effectiveness and safety, but the article doesn’t emphasize that need for – and the current state of – the evidence.
The story does not describe the costs of TEM compared to standard open surgery.
The story does not quantify the benefits of TEM.
The story does not mention one harm of TEM, making it sound like it has no drawbacks. While it is true that TEM is less invasive, there is still a risk of bleeding, perforation, and the need for repeat procedures.
The story mentions studies showing TEM is effective, but there is no discussion of the strength of the available evidence, how these studies were performed and what questions remain about TEM.
The story does not overstate the prevalence or seriousness of colon cancer or large polyps. The story points out that not even all of the large polyps are in fact cancer but that they will generally progress to cancer over time.
The story only quotes one physician.
The story mentions surgery through an abnominal incision as the alternative.
The story clearly states that the availability of TEM is limited because few surgeons are trained to perform the surgery.
The story clearly states that TEM has been around for a while but is only being recently used in the US.
We can’t be sure if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information. We do know that only one doctor was interviewed in the piece.
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.
You might also like