December 20th, 2010 by Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
1 Comment »
The Internet has threatened journalism. Clay Shirky has said that everyone is a media outlet. An Internet connection and blogging platform makes everyone a publisher. Can the mass professionalization of journalism be applied to medicine or health? Can access to a broadband connection outfit a citizen to think and act like a physician?
There are pieces of what physicians do that can be replicated, and other pieces that can’t. The technical things that doctors do can’t be replaced. Removing an appendix or replacing a heart valve, for example. Tough to pull off on CureTogether.
But what about the thinking? After all, patients have access to the same information, references, and literature as physicians. Unfettered access to information can create an illusion. It can give us a false sense of control. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at 33 Charts*
November 29th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Interesting post by the Retraction Watch blog, pointing to an interesting paper published last week in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. An excerpt from the blog post:
Over 14 years, 84 editors at the journal rated close to 15,000 reviews by about 1,500 reviewers. Highlights of their findings:
…92% of peer reviewers deteriorated during 14 years of study in the quality and usefulness of their reviews (as judged by editors at the time of decision), at rates unrelated to the length of their service (but moderately correlated with their mean quality score, with better-than average reviewers decreasing at about half the rate of those below average). Only 8% improved, and those by very small amount.
How bad did they get? The reviewers were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 in which a change of 0.5 (10%) had been earlier shown to be “clinically” important to an editor. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
November 3rd, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Continuing this week’s spontaneous theme (we didn’t make the claims and write the stories) of runaway enthusiasm for various screening tests by some researchers and journalists, HealthDay news service has reported on a study published in the Oct. 28 issue of the journal Nature that they say “provides new insight into the genetics of pancreatic cancer.” In the story, they let one of the researchers get away with saying, almost unchallenged:
“What’s important about this study is that it’s objective data in support of why everyone should be screened for pancreatic cancer.”
Mind you, this was a study that looked at tissue from just seven patients. The story continued with its breathless enthusiasm for the pancreatic cancer screening idea:
“In the future, new imaging techniques and blood tests will offer hope for early detection, the study noted. And just as people have a colonoscopy when they turn 50, “perhaps they should have an endoscopy of their upper gastrointestinal organs that includes an ultrasound of the pancreas,” said (the researcher).”
The very end of the story included some skepticism from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
October 19th, 2010 by BarbaraFicarraRN in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News, Research
No Comments »
Guest post submitted by MD Anderson Cancer Center
Most of us can’t keep up with all the new ways to avoid cancer. Thanks to the Internet, we now have an unlimited supply of cancer knowledge at our fingertips. But, how can we filter out the good, the bad and the questionable?
Below are steps to help you tease out the facts when reading that next big news story on preventing cancer.
Says who?
Don’t just take the writer’s word for it. Dig a little deeper to find out the source behind the hype. The American Cancer Society says you should ask yourself these questions when reading an article:
- Was this a press release from a company announcing a new breakthrough in cancer prevention?
- Was it a report from a clinical study that was given at a scientific conference?
- Was it a report from a study that was published in a respected medical journal?
- Where was the study done? What do you know about the research centers that conducted and sponsored the study?
Knowing the answers to these questions can help you decide on where you need to go to seek more details about the study findings. Visit the source of the information to learn more about how this new substance or method was tested. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Health in 30*
October 13th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Expert Interviews, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Video
No Comments »
Next week, the National Press Foundation offers an “all-expenses-paid, educational program on cancer issues” for journalists, with all expenses paid by Pfizer. I’ve written several times about my criticism of this approach.
The National Press Foundation has offered to let me speak at next week’s event or at a subsequent all-expenses-paid program for journalists on Alzheimer’s disease also underwritten by Pfizer.
I’m unable to attend either event because of prior commitments, but suggested to NPF that they ask Merrill Goozner to speak instead. He’s right in Washington, has written and lectured about conflicts of interest in healthcare, and was available. Goozner told me he has not been contacted. So, since I can’t attend and since critical voices probably won’t be represented at the first workshop, I have posted some video clips of what others might have said if given the opportunity. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
