We all do it. We all complain and sometimes even compliment businesses and professionals we deal with. I always rate restaurants and attractions I go to (I'm going for my next badge on TripAdvisor).
Some people rate their doctors, dentists, and more. I haven't gotten that far. I do blog about my doctors from time to time but I usually keep a line of anonymity and privacy do not blast them using their name. I try not to be negative as a rule on other people.
This one man did blog about his unhappiness with his wife's doctor after she died from cancer. Then the doctor sued him for damage to her career in response.
This isn't an isolated incident.
If a restaurant or hotel receives a bad review, they can go back and apologize below the review and proactively try to help the customer.
Doctors can't do that. They are compromised by privacy laws and HIPAA restrictions.
I personally don't read reviews for doctors online. At my breast cancer diagnosis, I was and still am being treated at a local hospital where I am comfortable with the quality of care.
Everyone I knew was reviewing their doctors and medical facilities online and using those reviews to choose doctors and where to be treated. My doctors weren't listed so it didn't really help me. All it did was make me feel bad that no one had reviewed my doctors so how was I supposed to know if they were good or not.
Before I tried to look them up, I was happy with my care.
I have never reviewed my doctors either. I don't think reviews of medical providers do much good. There is too much emotion wrapped around medical care. The man who blogged about his wife's doctor was upset his wife died, friends didn't visit, and regretted the surgery she had. It was an emotional time for him.
I admit to blogging about stupid neurotic co-workers, cranky doctors, idiot drivers, and many others. But I don't put their names in and it allows me to vent. I am not writing to blast others but to allow me to add my two cents.
As far as I am concerned its within my First Amendment Rights and I am not opening myself up to any lawsuits. And besides, I like my doctors and feel no need to review them now.
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Here's a surprise!
Researchers lie exaggerate benefits and play down side effects in describing their results. I am SHOCKED I tell you, shocked! And I'm sure its not just for breast cancer drugs.
A recent study in the Annals of Oncology (which you can't read online unless you pay big bucks) found this. I found this describing it:
"Reports on Breast-Cancer Drugs Are Often Biased, Research Finds
Researchers often exaggerate the benefits and play down the potentially toxic side-effects of breast-cancer drugs in clinical trials, according to a new study published in the Annals of Oncology. One way they do this is by emphasizing some secondary benefit of the drug, even if it failed to achieve the primary objective (such as, say, lengthening the life of the patient). High toxicity findings frequently go unmentioned in abstracts and conclusions—perhaps, the authors suggest, “to make the results more attractive.”
The researchers looked at 164 randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2011 and found evidence of bias in reporting toxicity in 67 percent of those trials. While they note that the pharmaceutical industry is “increasingly influential” in the sponsorship of such trials, they didn’t find any association between industry involvement and bias.
So what do the authors propose be done? Journal editors, regulators, and reviewers should apply “a critical eye to trial reports” to ferret out instances of bias, they say—implying that they have been failing in that responsibility up to now."
Well is anyone else shocked here? First we must insist researchers take lie detector tests. Next markers are not allowed to put their spin on any results. Finally, editors, regulators and reviewers should smarten up.
Doh! Really. This does not surprise me at all. I don't put blame on editors, regulators and reviewers. I am sure they are working with what is presented to them. Is it their job to decipher research? Unless they are scientists I am not sure they are qualified. No the onus goes back to the researchers who run the studies to make sure the data is presented correctly.
A recent study in the Annals of Oncology (which you can't read online unless you pay big bucks) found this. I found this describing it:
"Reports on Breast-Cancer Drugs Are Often Biased, Research Finds
Researchers often exaggerate the benefits and play down the potentially toxic side-effects of breast-cancer drugs in clinical trials, according to a new study published in the Annals of Oncology. One way they do this is by emphasizing some secondary benefit of the drug, even if it failed to achieve the primary objective (such as, say, lengthening the life of the patient). High toxicity findings frequently go unmentioned in abstracts and conclusions—perhaps, the authors suggest, “to make the results more attractive.”
The researchers looked at 164 randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2011 and found evidence of bias in reporting toxicity in 67 percent of those trials. While they note that the pharmaceutical industry is “increasingly influential” in the sponsorship of such trials, they didn’t find any association between industry involvement and bias.
So what do the authors propose be done? Journal editors, regulators, and reviewers should apply “a critical eye to trial reports” to ferret out instances of bias, they say—implying that they have been failing in that responsibility up to now."
Well is anyone else shocked here? First we must insist researchers take lie detector tests. Next markers are not allowed to put their spin on any results. Finally, editors, regulators and reviewers should smarten up.
Doh! Really. This does not surprise me at all. I don't put blame on editors, regulators and reviewers. I am sure they are working with what is presented to them. Is it their job to decipher research? Unless they are scientists I am not sure they are qualified. No the onus goes back to the researchers who run the studies to make sure the data is presented correctly.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
23 Best Breast Cancer Blogs of 2012
"Caroline has her own list of aches, pains, and the cancer bug, but she’s not letting it stop her. This survivor has a few bones to pick with the medical community, though, and she’s not letting anything slide. Advocate, blogger, and awareness junkie extraordinaire, Caroline has big plans for cancer: its end.
Caroline’s Breast Cancer Blog has no shortage of provocative, detailed discussion about what’s new in breast cancer treatments, diagnosis, and everything else she feels motivated to scrutinize. Cancer should know by now that Caroline does what she wants – and does it well!"
I'm glad they like me. Someone likes me. I guess I do have opinions.
But now I have 22 more blogs to follow. I probably already follow at least five of the others listed but I am going to start following the others. I suggest you all go look at all the others and maybe start following them as well.
Today I am off to the back pain doctor to talk about my back pain. Grr. I want a miracle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)