A very informative story that helps frame for readers some of the complications with respect to treatment options. In the face of claims in advertisements, it provided a clear set of questions about issues that may otherwise be bypassed. Especially with respect to a treatment option that on the surface appears to be the latest and greatest, it is helpful to remind consumers that there are long term issues to be considered as well as the highlighted short term gains. This was a valuable story that can be used by readers to prepare questions to help them assess the relative value in the treatment options available.
There was no discussion of costs.
The story clearly mentioned the reduction in hospitalization time, need for blood transfusions, and internal scarring were benefits of the procedure though it did not provide quantitative details. In addition, the story did provide quantitative data on the 30-day risk of sexual and urinary function complications.
Clearly elaborated.
The story provided information that would better enable people to read between the lines and ask relevant questions about claims made with respect to outcomes following surgery. It described a study comparing outcomes for men having their prostates removed using different approaches. It also included sufficient detail for readers to understand some of the limitations about the study data.
However the story is incorrect in stating that it’s not clear whether either surgery is superior to watchful waiting. In fact, the traditional surgery has been proven to reduce the risk of dying from prostate cancer compared to watchful waiting in a controlled trial–the highest level of evidence. But – and this is important in the context of this particular story – there is no similar evidence for the laparoscopic surgeries.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
Comments from several clinicians were included in this piece to point out some of the potential confounders with the study results.
It was mildly amusing that one of the clinicians interviewed stated categorically that there are over 800 previous studies on robot-assisted prostate -v the majority of which demonstrate superiority. This is an awfully large number of studies about a relatively new technology; further, one of the important points of this story is that there are both short term and longer term outcomes to be considered.
The story mentioned different approaches to the removal of the prostate as well as complete list of the treatment options for early stage prostate cancer.
The story indicated that the robotic apparatus needed for the procedure reported on is not available in all facilities though it was becoming more common.
The story included the trajectory of use for the treatment.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
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