Robotic prostatectomy transmitted live to engineers to promote collaboration
BMJ 2008; 336 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39532.355752.DB (Published 27 March 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;336:687
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This was an interesting article about attempts to "encourage
developments in robotic surgery."
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.
Gary Schwitzer,
Associate Professor,
University of Minnesota School of Journalism & Mass Communication,
Director, health journalism MA program,
Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Robotic prostatectomy transmitted live to engineers to promote collaboration: Unsubstantiated claims presented as evidence
I was more than a little concerned to read this article and
particularly by the way that the advantages of robotic prostatectomy were
uncritically presented - the statements of Mr Dasgupta appear almost as
'evidence' of benefit.
There are assertions of 'better results' which are not further
elaborated upon, apart from quoting 'a less tired surgeon POSSIBLY does a
better job', a 'usually' reduced length of stay, and, most controversially
of all, 'better cancer control after such operations and better
maintenance of erections'
Claims like these cannot go unchallenged and indeed should never have
appeared in the BMJ. No formal trial has ever assessed these outcomes,
and indeed the conclusions of recently published meta-analysis stated only
that 'compared with retropubic prostatectomy, laparoscopic and robotic-
assisted prostatectomy are associated with decreased operative blood loss,
decreased risk of transfusion, and similar risk of positive surgical
margin' (ref).
I note there is no mention of cost made in the article, which, I am
afraid, is more promotional material than article in a respected medical
journal. Robotically assisted prostatectomy may well have a role to play
in treatment of prostate cancer, but only after its value has been
properly evaluated, and until then, its proponents cannot make claims such
as those quoted in this article.
Reference
Parsons JK, Bennett JL.Outcomes of Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-
Assisted Prostatectomy.
Urology. 2008 Feb 9;[Epub ahead of print]
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests