This was a well organized story explaining the results of a study comparing two approaches for determining whether patients who present at the emergency room with chest pain are actually having a heart attack.
This story could have been improved with a few edits.
The story included cost estimates for both treatments.
The story notes there was no difference in the diagnostic value of the two approaches but does note a difference in time and costs.
The story provides a somewhat confusing and overly complicated picture of the risks of the CT scans without putting the risks into context with the standard diagnostic procedures. While there is a detailed listing of radiation exposure to the CT scan, no information is provided on the burden of the standard testing. Noting the radiation exposure in millisieverts without comparative information does little to inform the reader of the relative risks of the two approaches studied. The link between radiation exposure and the risk of developing cancer is perhaps beyond the scope of the story. A simple citation (for example – http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/ucm115329.htm ) would have helped the readers better understand the size of the risk.
While the story states that a more definitive study is underway, it does not comment on the limitations on drawing conclusions from study results that have only been presented at a conference and have not been subjected to peer review.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
That said, since a numeric estimate of the number of people who go to the emergency with chest pain was given, it would have been helpful to provide a comparable estimate for the percentage that actually are having a heart attack rather than putting this as ‘a small fraction’.
The story does provide comments from experts in the field not associated with the study.
The focus of the story was a study of different options for heart attack imaging tests.
The story compared cardiac CT and radioactive dye for the diagnosis of heart attack in individuals who presented with chest pain in the emergency room. While the story stated that CT scans are "increasingly used" and that the study was in 16 big medical centers, we aren’t given any sense of how widespread the use is actually is and no sense of what happens beyond "big medical centers."
The increasing use of CT scans was clear in the story.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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