text_1: Robotic surgeries costlier but safer: study
text_2: We don’t think the story conveyed the conclusion of the researchers, nor that of the the editorial writer. The researchers concluded: “While robotic assisted and laparoscopic surgery are associated with fewer deaths, complications, transfusions and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is more costly than laparoscopic and open surgery. Additional studies are needed to better delineate the comparative and cost effectivenss of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery relative to laparoscopic surgery and open surgery.” That conclusion sends a somewhat different message than that delivered in the story – and the difference is important. And the editorial writer stated that the study “failed to capture 3 important elements.” And then he clearly spelled those out. The story didn’t convey the depth/details of those concerns. What are the outcomes that readers/patients should really care about? That’s the question the editorial raised – or that many other independent observers would raise about this study. While the story was functional, it could have helped readers become smarter health care consumers with a bit more context.