Month: January 2011

(4 stars)
There was a lot of good detail in this story, but it failed to address the limitations of the observational study.getting vaccinated, making the shot sound like a slam dunk for all.

(3 stars)
A well-written and interesting story. But see our reviewers’ concerns about how the stage of the research was framed, including projection of benefits not yet known, no discussion of potential harms, and unclear discussion of who might benefit.

(3 stars)
This storys single sentence about the need for longer studies is far from sufficient balance to the array of forward-looking statements based on early evidence.

(2 stars)
Spines are not the only thing bent out of shape in this one-sided report about a scoliosis test being developed.

(2 stars)
We thought the benefits reported in this study were overplayed. And the effect of placebo was underplayed – framed as This is biased framing.

(4 stars)
AP’s story was better than the competing WebMD story in a few small but significant ways. Read the full review to see how.

(4 stars)
A generally well-done story that unfortunately had a disconnect between the headline – – (imagine the impact this might have on some women in that state) and the appropriate caveats deep in the story.

(4 stars)
An interesting and generally well-written story about fascinating research.

(3 stars)
Starting with the headline and continuing through a string of inputs from people on the Botox payroll, this story may have left readers with an unbalanced picture.

(4 stars)
A generally solid story that would have been stronger if it picked up on issues addressed in an editorial accompaying the journal article on which the story is based.

(3 stars)
Not as complete as the Los Angeles Times story we also reviewed on this topic.