This story fails to deliver the stuff that people need to know about less-invasive vs. traditional biopsies, such as:
Rather than lots of numbers about increased useage, why not give us something we can use? Something we need? Is there evidence to show that this trend is absolutely a good thing? Are there unanswered questions remaining?
"Less invasive" and "minimally invasive" has not always meant better outcomes. Show us the data!
No discussion of costs – which is curious in a story describing the growth in use of less invasive biopsies, supposedly allowing for shorter hospital stays.
This was perhaps the most glaring omission in the story. No numbers were given to back up some vague, extravagant claims, such as:
"Minimally invasive" does not equate to "no harm." Yet no discussion of potential harms – either in traditional biopsies or in the minimally-invasive variety made it into the story. No medical intervention with any level of invasiveness is without harm. So potential harms must be discussed to make the story complete.
Key questions about the evidence were not asked or answered, such as:
Not applicable because no diseases were discussed in any detail.
One independent expert was quoted, although not to provide any data-driven evidence. And his quote, "I doubt there is variation to this in any major medical center" begs verification.
No evidence-based comparison of biopsy techniques was provided – only the vague testimonials on behalf of the less invasive approach mentioned above.
The availability – and growing use of – less invasive biopsies is the whole point of the story. But the story didn’t clarify how broad the study sample was – and how representative of different health care settings large and small, urban and rural, etc.. For this information to be truly meaningful and helpful to readers all over the US, such scrutiny is vital.
The story focused on the growth in use of – and therefore the relative lack of novelty anymore in – less invasive biopsies.
It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news 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.