This report about the risks of an elective c-section before 39 weeks of gestation does a credible job presenting the findings of a significant study. It describes the results accurately and with sufficient details.
Two shortcomings:
* The story fails to include information about the cost of the surgery
* The reporter should have talked to at least one independent expert on the subject of vaginal vs. c-section deliveries.
No data comparing costs of c-section vs. vaginal birth is provided.
This is surprising, given the fact that one reason experts discourage elective c-sections is high cost.
The reporter does a diligent job of quantifying the results, using both relative risks and percentage of bad outcomes in the studied population.
The story usefully distinguishes among results for c-sections done at 37, 38 and 39 weeks.
The risk of harm in elective c-sections is the focus of the study, and the news report explains them well.
Overall, good job of describing the size, methods, and implications of the study.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the risks or emotional aspects of elective c-sections.
The story includes quotes from only two physicians, the lead researcher and the author of a related editorial.
That is not sufficient for a story of this importance and length.
At minimum, an experienced OB with no connection to the study should have been consulted.
The story explains the risks of having an elective c-section at 37, 38 and 39 weeks. This information can help women and their doctors determine when to schedule an elective surgery.
The widespread use of c-sections is clear in the story.
The report makes clear, with some level of detail, precisely how common c-sections and elective c-sections are.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Only an author and an editorial writer were quoted.
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.
You might also like