Abstract
schwitz@umn.edu
This was an interesting article about attempts to encourage developments in robotic surgery.1 But the story was completely devoid of any data.
We learn that robotic radical prostatectomies are much more common in the US than in the UK but we learn nothing about outcomes. We learn that there are ethical issues, but none is specified. We learn that a urologist believes robotic surgery has several advantages. But those are not quantified. What does “better results” mean?
We learn that “patients recover more quickly” but we’re not told how many patients. We learn of “better cancer control” without any definition of that term.
Ditto for reported claims of more precision, “less collateral damage, resulting in less blood loss, faster recovery, and fewer complications.” No numbers.
I’m trying to teach my health journalism students, “No numbers? No story.” I hope they weren’t reading this week’s BMJ News section.
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.Mayor S. Robotic prostatectomy transmitted live to engineers to promote collaboration. BMJ 2008;336:687 (29 March.) doi:10.1136/bmj.39532.355752.DB [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]