|
|
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 31st, 2009
One of the things I liked best about practicing medicine is that I was constantly learning. Making rounds at seven in the morning on an oncology floor would be a chore if you didn’t get to examine and think and figure out what’s happening to a man with leukemia whose platelets are dangerously low, or whose lymphoma is responding to treatment but can’t take anymore medicine because of an intense, burn-like rash. You’d have to look stuff up, sort among clues
See more Why Medical Lessons?
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 31st, 2009
The risks and costs of breast cancer screening are exaggerated and misrepresented in the recent news.… My conclusion is that rather than ditching a life-saving procedure that’s imperfect, we should make sure that all doctors and radiology facilities are up to snuff. We need to distinguish between errors in the measurement (cancer or not) and errors in decisions that we — patients and doctors — make after upon detecting a premalignant or early-stage malignancy in a woman’s breast.
See more Looking Ahead on Breast Cancer Screening
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 30th, 2009
First, a definition* — False positives happen in screening mammography when the images suggest the presence of a malignancy in a woman who doesn’t have cancer in her breast. Here’s my proposed model — False positives can arise during any of three conceptual segments of the testing process…
See more Proposed Model for Evaluating False Positives in Screening Mammography
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 29th, 2009
Why bother, you might ask — wouldn’t it be easier to drop the subject? “Make it go away,” sang Sheryl Crow on her radiation sessions. I’ll answer as might a physician and board-certified oncologist who happens to be a BC survivor in her 40s: we need establish how often false positives lead, in current practice, to additional procedures and inappropriate treatment…These numbers matter. They’re essential to the claim that the risks of breast cancer screening outweigh the benefits.
See more A Bit More on False Positives, Dec 2009, Part 1
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 21st, 2009
Last week I received an email from a former patient. He has hemochromatosis, an inherited disposition to iron overload. His body is programmed to take in excessive amounts of iron, which then might deposit in the liver, glands, heart and skin. He mentioned “some amazing videos on hematology and hemochromatosis and genetics” he’d discovered on YouTube. This is the future of medicine, I realized. … Whether physicians want their patients to search the Internet for medical advice is beside the point. We’re there already, whether or not it’s good for us and whether what we find there is true.
See more Information Overload
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 15th, 2009
The risks of radiation from CT scanning will almost certainly add to the current confusion and concerns about the risks of breast cancer screening. Mammography differs from CT scanning in several important ways: 1. Mammograms involve much less radiation exposure than CT scans. 2. Mammography is well-regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies. The Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) requires… 3. Women who undergo screening mammograms can control when and where they get this procedure. Screening mammograms are elective by nature..
See more Legitimate Concerns and Unfortunate Timing on Radiation from C.T. Scanning
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 11th, 2009
 I know what it’s like to get the “red devil” in the veins. You can learn about Adriamycin, a name brand chemotherapy, on WebMD. Or, if you prefer, you can check on doxorubicin, the generic term, using MedlinePlus, a comprehensive and relatively reliable public venture put forth by the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. If you’re into organic chemistry, you might want to review the structure of 14-hydroxydaunomycin, an antibiotic and cancer therapy first described 40 years ago…
See more How Well Do You Really Want to Know the “Red Devil?”
By Elaine Schattner, MD, on December 7th, 2009
I didn’t know much about social media until the summer of 2008. Then, I entered Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism as a new student and attended an optional lunch-time session on Facebook, Gmail and Twitter. My kids used Facebook, so I knew about that. Still, I hesitated…
See more Doctors Don’t Tweet
By Elaine Schattner, MD, on December 4th, 2009
Dear Readers,
The idea of this blog is to consider how people — patients and doctors both — find and interpret medical information, communicate and make informed decisions.
There’s a lot to cover -
Some upcoming topics: health on-line, white coats, dealing with disability, opting for palliative care and more.
Thanks everyone, for your support and interest!
Related Posts:When ‘No’ Turns Positive in Medical Care and EducationHow Well Do You Really Want to Know the “Red Devil?”On Juno and Screening Test StatsDinner with my FamilyWhat Does it Mean if Primary Care Doctors Get the Answers Wrong About Screening Stats?
By Elaine Schattner M.D., on December 3rd, 2009
“Well, well” says the convenience store clerk. “Back for another test?“
“I think the first one was defective. The plus sign looks more like a division symbol, so I remain unconvinced,” states Juno the pregnant teenager.
“Third test today, mama-bear,” notes the clerk.
…“There it is. The little pink plus sign is so unholy,” Juno responds.
She’s pregnant, clearly, and she knows she is. (see clip from Juno the movie*)
Think of how a statistician might consider Juno’s predicament…
See more On Juno and Screening Test Stats
|
|
