Year: 2010

(2 stars)
Only so much you can say about a 222-word story that was apparently based solely on info from a drug company VP. Woefully incomplete.

(1 stars)
New, new, new, new, new – said the news release rehash. But nothing in the story ever really explained what difference this made in the lives of the 27 people studied.

(3 stars)
Whether a business story with a stock market angle or a health section story with a clinical trial angle, some of the foundational bricks were missing from this piece – regardless its home.

(1 stars)
HealthDay seems to have outsourced this story Journalism?

(5 stars)
Regular readers of this site know that we admire the LA Times’ Healthy Skeptic column.

(2 stars)
Another example of the perils of rushing to report on abstracts released weeks in advance of the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. The story fails to provide needed context and explanation, to provide any interviews with anyone, and to disclose potential financial conflicts of interest.

(5 stars)
This story reports on one of only 6 studies highlighted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology out of more than 4,000 abstracts posted online a month in advance of its annual meeting. – at least had one important balancing cautious perspective.