Roy Poses: “Flawed research that supports an expensive, high-technology intervention for which millions of people would be eligible appears in a major journal. The intervention is hyped in news articles, and by a grass roots patient advocacy group. Politicians soon jump on the bandwagon. Citing the potential for saving lives, enthusiasts ignore the flaws in the data that started it all. Only much later do we find out that the researchers who wrote the flawed study may stand to make money if the high-technology intervention is widely adopted.”
The folly of lung cancer screening
ADVERTISEMENT
More in Uncategorized
Past Week
-
The insurance maze that single-payer health care would end
-
The conflict of interest that discloses as nothing
-
How to reassure patients: 5 steps beyond normal tests
-
Brain capital: the $11.7 trillion case for brain health
-
AI in prior authorization: 3 contract questions for 2027
-
How to build a dementia care pathway, not a referral sheet
-
Past 6 Months
-
Why CDC opioid guidelines get the overdose data wrong
-
Retirement isn’t the end of medicine, it’s a second act [PODCAST]
-
Sensory processing in autism and the brain’s volume control
-
What maternity care deserts cost a town
-
Why medicine needs a national physician license now
-
A cold cost $945. The cost of primary care is broken.
-
Recent Posts
-
Brain capital: the $11.7 trillion case for brain health
-
The real risk of medical tourism complications is distance
-
5 competencies the future of medical education requires
-
AI chatbots and psychosis: Families see the harm first
-
Hearing screening in primary care is a single question
-
After-hours charting isn’t a backlog. It’s a team problem.
-
Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!
Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.
