Computed Tomography (CT) scans produce incredibly detailed high-resolution pictures of the body, making them invaluable tools for the detection and treatment of disease. However as doctors rely on them more and more for diagnosis and monitoring and patients demand them for every ache and pain, the utilization of these high-tech scans has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. But how much imaging is too much? What if the burden of radiation exposure from these scans outweighs the benefits? Two new studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this week raise the concern that all of this scanning may be too much of a good thing. One study predicts that between 15,000 and 45,000 future cases of cancer may be caused by the radiation exposure, while another study tracks huge variation in the amount of radiation patients are exposed to, even for the same type of scan.
Overall, this story was well done. By accurately describing the predicted number of cases of cancer and resulting dealths in the study, the story avoids disease mongering. The story mentions several other testing options, such as simpler CT tests, conventional X-rays, ultrasound or MRI that involve less or no radiation. The story does a good job of describing the harm of exposure to radiation due to CT scanning, but could have also mentioned other harms from overuse of scanning, such as follow-up testing and procedures to evaluate suspicious findings that turn out to be benign.
The story could have been improved by describing the costs of CT scanning, which are substantial and climbing. We also think the story should have commented on the nature of the study projecting the number of deaths due to radiation from CT scans. The study used a model to predict cases of cancer and subsequent deaths. These cases were projected, but not directly observed. Modeling studies, while useful, have certain limitations and their results should be interpreted with caution. The story does not describe these limitations, other than to cite skepticism from a radiologist.
Consumers should be aware that they may be exposed to more radiation than they think and should discuss this risk with their doctor before undergoing CT scanning.
The story does not mention costs of CT scans, which are substantial.
It would not be necessary for the story to quantify the benefits of CT scanning. There is in fact no way to quantify the benefits of such a general test.
The story does a good job of describing the harm of exposure to radiation due to CT scanning. The story could have also mentioned other harms from overuse of scanning, such as follow-up testing and procedures to evaluate suspicious findings that turn out to be benign.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the study projecting the number of deaths due to radiation from CT scans. The study used a risk model to predict cases of cancer and subsequent deaths. These cases were not directly observed. Modeling studies, while useful, have certain limitations and their results should be interpreted with caution. The story does not describe these limitations, other than cite skepticism from a radiologist.
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 quotes multiple experts, including the authors of the study, the author of the accompanying editorial and a Radiologist who was not involved with the study.
The story mentions several other testing options, such as simpler CT tests, conventional X-rays, ultrasound or MRI that involve less or no radiation.
Clearly CT scans are available.
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. Nonethless, we’ll give the story a satisfactory score on this criterion.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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