It’s a rare story that counters all of the claims made for robotic surgery. This story scores so well because, one by one, it addresses our criteria in a way we expect stories about new technologies to analyze claims.
This was a story that had consumers in mind – and the take-home should be clear to any reader as a result.
Robotic surgery has increasingly gained acceptance recently despite the fact that the true benefits of the device may be minimal. Given the expense of the device and the per case costs of the disposables, a story that looks hard at the existing evidence is more than welcome.
Good analysis of cost impact of use of robotics – for patients and health care institutions.
The story raises many questions about claims of benefits from robotic surgery. Examples:
The story didn’t quantify harms – something it could have attempted to do – but we’ll give it a satisfactory score nonetheless because it raised an issue many stories don’t – the loss of sensory feedback upon which surgeons rely.
It also cited one study showing that people who had an adrenal gland removed by robot were more likely to have complications.
The story allowed the manufacturer to have its say and then countered each claim with a Johns Hopkins surgeon’s evaluation of the evidence.
Several independent sources were quoted.
The story included comparisons between robotic surgery and other laparascopic and traditional surgery throughout.
The growing use of robotic surgery – despite questions about the evidence – is the focus of the story.
The story stated “Despite the DaVinci’s popularity, its surgical talents may not surpass those of flesh-and-blood physicians.”
It’s clear the story didn’t rely 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.
You might also like