31% of all births in the U.S. in 2006 were performed via Cesarean Section, well above the WHO’s recommendation that this percentage should not exceed 15%. The number of C-sections is rising, mostly because many women who had a C-section for their last baby are choosing to have another C-section rather than trying to give birth vaginally. Because this type of C-section is scheduled, there may be some pressure to schedule it earlier than recommended for the convenience of the mother, family, or physician. This study examines the risks of scheduling the procedure at 37 weeks–when babies generally reach gestational maturity–or later, but before the recommended 39 weeks.
This story does a good job of describing the current study and quantifying the results. The story quotes multiple experts who provide different perspectives.
In all, this was a very well done story that provides valuable information to the readers – and in only about 500 words.
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 story quantifiies the risks of C-section. The story could have provided context for these numbers by comparing them to natural birth.
The story adequately describes the harms of C-section.
The story does a good job of describing the current study.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes multiple experts.
Clearly vaginal labor after C-section is the alternative to elective repeat C-section. The story could have done more to discuss the pros and cons of vaginal delivery after C-section.
The "growing number of planned C-sections" is clear from the story.
Some of the history and much of the context of the use of planned C-sections is clear from the piece.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, it is clear that the story does 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.
You might also like