There is no doubt that advances in imaging technology have revolutionized how we diagnose and treat disease. The past two decades have seen dramatic increases in the utilization of high tech imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). The ever expanding list of indications and uses for these technologies have been a boon for device manufacturers, hospitals and radiologists, however is there a potential for overuse? At what point may the harms of these tests outweigh the benefits? Two new studies published in The Archives of Internal Medicine highlight rather starkly the particular harm of radiation exposure from CT scanning. In one study, the authors predict that between 15,000 and 45,000 future cancers could be caused by ionizing radiation from CT scans.
This story clearly describes the harm of radiation exposure from CT scanning. It could have also mentioned that excessive CT scanning can also lead to unecessary follow-up testing and/or procedures for suspicious findings that turn out to be benign.
The story could have been improved by elaborating on the strength of the evidence to support the findings of the number of deaths attributable to CT scans. The numbers cited in the story come from a risk model that estimates the expected number of deaths based on the amount of radiation exposure in a particular year. These deaths were not directly observed, but were rather predicted. This approach, while valid, has its own limitations and set of caveats that should be mentioned. It could have also discussed costs of CT scanning, which are substantial and increasing.
The story does not quote sources other than the authors of the study. The story should have quoted independent experts who could have provided perspective on the importance of these results.
Finally the story missed some wonderful opportunities to educate consumers on the problem of radiation exposure. The second article in the journal highlights the dramatic differences in radiation exposure in routine clinical CT scans in four academic hospitals. The radiation differences noted were significant with up to a 22 fold difference in exposures seen in the same scans. Radiation exposure from CT scans appears to represent a public health problem, which is particularly important in young and middle aged women. No attempts were made to point out that in many instances other diagnostic methods are available, including MRI, ultrasound and routine xrays that involve less or no radiation.
It matters because, as the story explains, "We’re doing millions of CT scans every year and the numbers are increasing."
The story does not describe the costs of CT scanning, which are substantial and increasing.
Because the story focused on the cancer risk associated with radiation exposure from CT scanning, it would not be necessary for the story to also quantify the benefits of CT scanning. How the story could go about quantifying the benefits of something so generic as CT scanning is also not clear.
The story clearly describes the harm of radiation exposure from CT scanning. The story could have also mentioned that excessive CT scanning can also lead to unecessary follow-up testing and/or procedures for suspicious findings that turn out to be benign.
The story doesn’t adequately describe the evidence to support the findings of the number of deaths attributable to CT scans. The numbers cited in the story come from a risk model that estimates the expected number of deaths based on the amount of radiation exposure in a particular year. These deaths were not directly observed, but predicted. This approach, while valid, has its own limitations and set of caveats that should be mentioned.
The story accurately represents the number of cancers that are expected from the radiation doses observed in the study and how many of them could be fatal.
The story does not quote sources other than the authors of the study and the journal editor. The story should have quoted independent experts who could have provided some perspective on the importance of these results.
The story does not compare CT scanning to any alternatives, such as other types of imaging tests (MRI scans, ultrasounds, conventional X-rays, etc). Although it is implied, the story should have explicitly mentioned "no scanning" as an alternative.
Clearly CT scans are available. The story does a good job of describing the dramatic increase in the use of CT scanning in the past 20 years.
The story highlights the risks associated with the increasingly common use of CT scans. This issue is certainly not new. While the two cited articles in the story are important additions to our understanding of the risks, they are not seminal articles by any means. The issue of risk, necessity of testing and dose delivered per test have been discussed in the literature for at least a decade. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story a satisfactory score on this criterion.
There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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