(3 stars) The paper slashed an original AP story from 939 words down to 369. It’s premature to say this will "end any doubt” on the risk-benefit ratio. We think many women would find this story sorely lacking.
(2 stars) No data on safety or effectiveness, and no mention of costs. For a story about an exotic new technology that might replace a standard practice whose cost is well established, this is inexplicable.
(4 stars) Women taking these drugs may be alarmed about the increased fracture risk. So the story should have given absolute risks, and discussed risk-benefit implications.
(5 stars) The story does a great job of making a very complex concept easier for the reader to understand – demonstrating the downsides of our love of imaging pictures. We need a lot more like this. Bravo!
(3 stars) Good job explaining the diet, but the story didn’t differentiate between impact on risk factors and impact on cardiovascular disease Itself. And no critical evaluation of the “metabolic syndrome.”
(4 stars) The story met most of our criteria. However, it fell short in quantifying the benefits of treatment. What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured?
(3 stars) The headline and the opening paragraph suggest that the drug does in fact work for jet lag. It is far too early to jump to that conclusion. The story also lacks context about similar drugs.
(1 star) This story was completely devoid of evidence – and of sound reporting. Fails to give context on the problems with fusion surgery. A classic example of what can go wrong in health care reporting.
Decent job conveying the key findings. But it used the wrong risk reduction figure, didn’t comment on common criticisms of meta-analyses, and didn’t differentiate among effects on different cancers.
(4 stars) This concise (only 430 word) story shows how efficiently critical elements can be relayed: the skeleton of study design, the bias implied by the funding source, the results, along expert comments.
(2 stars) This story failed to provide balance for a reader to understand the risks and benefits of this line of treatment, what other options are available, or the costs involved.
The story met most of our criteria, but we are troubled by the emphasis on the impressive-sounding 44% relative risk reduction figure, with the absolute risk reduction given only later in the piece.