A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the frequency of utilization of imaging tests in the United States and the associated radiation exposure. Researchers found that a staggering nearly 70% of adults in the study population got an imaging test over the two years of the study. These results highlight the potential harms of such a high use of imaging, which is not limited to radiation exposure, but also includes the potential for diagnosing conditions which would never go on to cause a problem, leading to unnecessary treatments, not to mention stress and anxiety.
This story adequately describes the current study and its implications in terms of radiation exposure. But it also focuses primarily on the economic implication of such high utilization. Given the current debate on healthcare reform, this awareness is important, however it is peripheral to the study under discussion. The study was really focused on quantifying how much imaging tests expose us to radiation, not on the high costs of these tests and the market forces behind the high utilization. Regardless, this story does remind us that as consumers we need to be aware of these market forces and confident that when tests are ordered, we are aware of the implications for own health, both good and bad.
It would not be neccessary for the story to describe the costs of individual radiology tests since they are so varied. But the story does a good job of describing the overall toll of imaging costs and raises important points about the perverse financial incentives in the US healthcare economy which favors the ordering of more and more tests.
The story suggests in an early quote from one of the study authors that the newer tests are "…extremely helpful…" but then notes that there is insufficient information to determine which tests are valuable and which ones are not.
The story does a good job of describing the possible harms of imaging, including radiation exposure, overdiagnosis and pyschological distress.
The story provides an adequate overview of the study under consideration. However much of the story is about the costs and potential overutilization of diagnostic testing. While appealing and timely, the story does not provide adequate evidence to support many of the comments related to these issues.
The story pursues a theme that the tests are doing more harm than good – quite in contrast to a disease-mongering frame that might suggest that all imaging is necessary.
The story quotes multiple sources.
Clearly the alternative is no testing, particularly in the context of management of chronic diseases. The story could have described how traditional hands-on examinations and history-taking are alternatives to testing.
Clearly radiology tests are widely available.
Clearly imaging is not a new idea, but it is being used on an increasingly larger scale.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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