This story about a local surgical center’s new daVinci "robot" surgical device describes the patient being operated on in the opening anecdote as "unconscious." So was someone at the newspaper.
The story fails to:
The report is not very clear, coherent, informative or important. Its greatest virtue is that it is short.
How local newspapers deal with issues of medical technology assessment, of community ascertainment of need, of resource allocation. of costs, of evidence is vital to public understanding of why we spend more than any other country on health care without the outcomes to show for it. Stories can educate or they can advertise. This one falls in the latter category.
The story says the new daVinci machine costs $1.7 million. But it fails to say how much this affects the cost of surgery.
It also accepts without verification the sketchy assertion that the cost of the machine is offset by shorter hospital stays.
The report does not provide any data on the benefits of daVinci-assisted surgery.
The story does not cite any potential harms of the daVinci-assisted procedure.
The writer cites no evidence to show the device is safe or effective, or how its use improves outcomes compared to conventional "open" surgery. Indeed, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality states that "there isn’t enough research yet to tell us how well (this works) compared with other treatments." (It is easy for anyone to find it on the web.) That lack of evidence is a key issue that was completely ignored.
The story features at least three ineffectual attempts to generate false drama–the patient in the opening anecdote is "unconscious" (good thing!), his prostate is described as "cancer-ridden," and the machine is said to move into "tighter corners of the human body."
The story cites the fact that the surgery in question was stopped due to a fear of bleeding, despite its irrelevance to understanding the device itself.
The story also quotes a satisfied patient who said he chose the daVinci because he didn’t want to be "cut open like a watermelon"–the fate, presumably, of those who do not get robot-assisted surgery.
However, because the story really gives no background on prostate cancer, it is judged N/A on this criterion.
Only two sources are used:
The story would benefit from the perspective of an independent expert.
The story properly mentions that prostate cancer can also be treated wtih radiation and drugs. But it fails to mention watchful waiting, an important and often under-reported option people should know about.
The story indicates that the Oklahoma University Medical Center’s Center for Robotic Surgery has a new daVinci surgery device.
It doesn’t say whether other facilities in the area [or the country] use these machines. A reader would have no idea if the technology is in widespread use and where. They simply know one place to go for it – just like you’d get in an advertisement!
The story implies novelty, calling it the "lastest generation of high-tech machinery" used in surgery.
Yet the daVinci machine has been used for a decade, with about 1,000 units operating in the U.S. The new version of the machine cited is a minor upgrade over exisiting models.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release. We do know that all the cited info came from one doctor at one medical center. Pretty much what you get in a news release.
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