Medical misconceptions and the media

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Effectiveness in real life compared to effectiveness in media portrayals)
m (Undo revision 906284 by WaitingforGodot (talk) what the fuck?)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
==Effectiveness in real life compared to effectiveness in media portrayals==
 
==Effectiveness in real life compared to effectiveness in media portrayals==
A study looking at medically themed television programs found incredibly high rates of success for CPR, 75% odds of immediate resuscitation and 67% odds of long term survival.  This is compared to rates of 2-30% survival found in literature. <ref>[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199606133342406#t=abstract Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television — Miracles and Misinformation]
+
CPR is necessary and vital in response to cardiac arrest while waiting for paramedics or competent care.  The technique has saved many lives and prevented many long term injuries.  And the media mauls its representation.
 +
 
 +
A study looking at medically themed television programs found incredibly high rates of success for CPR, 75% odds of immediate resuscitation and 67% odds of long term survival.  This is compared to rates of 2-30% survival found in literature.  Additionally cardiac arrest on these programs was more often than not shown to be a result of acute injury (wounds, drowning, the like) whereas in the real world 75-95% of arrests are the result of heart disease. <ref>[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199606133342406#t=abstract Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television — Miracles and Misinformation]
 
Susan J. Diem, M.D., M.P.H., John D. Lantos, M.D., and James A. Tulsky, M.D.
 
Susan J. Diem, M.D., M.P.H., John D. Lantos, M.D., and James A. Tulsky, M.D.
 
N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1578-1582 June 13, 1996</ref>
 
N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1578-1582 June 13, 1996</ref>
 
 
==Compression-only CPR==
 
==Compression-only CPR==
 
There is some question regarding the effectiveness of artificial respiration traditionally associated with CPR.  A doctor in Tucson proposes that there is enough oxygen remaining in the blood stream and no artificial respiration is necessary.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20101005/chest-compression-only-cpr-saves-more-lives</ref>  Studies have shown that compression-only CPR has a higher rate of efficacy,<ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960064-5/fulltext</ref> though this could be because it's easier for the lay person to perform.<ref>http://www.emsworld.com/print/Emergency--Medical-Services/CARDIOCEREBRAL-Resuscitation/1$7857</ref>
 
There is some question regarding the effectiveness of artificial respiration traditionally associated with CPR.  A doctor in Tucson proposes that there is enough oxygen remaining in the blood stream and no artificial respiration is necessary.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20101005/chest-compression-only-cpr-saves-more-lives</ref>  Studies have shown that compression-only CPR has a higher rate of efficacy,<ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960064-5/fulltext</ref> though this could be because it's easier for the lay person to perform.<ref>http://www.emsworld.com/print/Emergency--Medical-Services/CARDIOCEREBRAL-Resuscitation/1$7857</ref>

Revision as of 23:10, 6 November 2011

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, commonly known as CPR, is a technique used to preserve the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain during cardiac arrest. Contrary to popular belief, CPR is not meant to revive a person or restart the heart. Defibrillation is instead used for this.

Contents

Self CPR hoax

There was an email circulating around 1999 about performing CPR on yourself. This is, of course, absurd since resuscitation implies unconsciousness. If you can breathe you don't need CPR yet. There is a technique called cough CPR which can be useful for patients experiencing sudden irregular heartbeats, but it works only in certain cases and doing it wrong may make things worse. [1]

Effectiveness in real life compared to effectiveness in media portrayals

CPR is necessary and vital in response to cardiac arrest while waiting for paramedics or competent care. The technique has saved many lives and prevented many long term injuries. And the media mauls its representation.

A study looking at medically themed television programs found incredibly high rates of success for CPR, 75% odds of immediate resuscitation and 67% odds of long term survival. This is compared to rates of 2-30% survival found in literature. Additionally cardiac arrest on these programs was more often than not shown to be a result of acute injury (wounds, drowning, the like) whereas in the real world 75-95% of arrests are the result of heart disease. [2]

Compression-only CPR

There is some question regarding the effectiveness of artificial respiration traditionally associated with CPR. A doctor in Tucson proposes that there is enough oxygen remaining in the blood stream and no artificial respiration is necessary.[3] Studies have shown that compression-only CPR has a higher rate of efficacy,[4] though this could be because it's easier for the lay person to perform.[5]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. http://mendedhearts.org/resources/about-heart-disease/the-coughing-rumor
  2. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television — Miracles and Misinformation Susan J. Diem, M.D., M.P.H., John D. Lantos, M.D., and James A. Tulsky, M.D. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1578-1582 June 13, 1996
  3. http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20101005/chest-compression-only-cpr-saves-more-lives
  4. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960064-5/fulltext
  5. http://www.emsworld.com/print/Emergency--Medical-Services/CARDIOCEREBRAL-Resuscitation/1$7857
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support