This segment could have been far more informative and helpful for viewers. It’s case where a news release – from the American College of Pediatrics – is more informative than the news segment.
(1 star) A very troubled story – cheerleading for virtual colonoscopy (“science fiction..Star Wars..video game..Disney World”) – never mentioning an independent review questioning the evidence for the test.
(5 stars) The story raises appropriate questions about evidence for a new genetic test of a woman’s risk of a common breast cancer. Expert interviews suggest that the test may have more cons than pros.
(4 stars) Too often a story about a developing medical technology used locally reads like a gee-whiz rave. This well-reported, judiciously written story is a welcome exception.
(4 stars) AP reports on a study that feels like an early phase drug trial in which the exact dose and benefit are not established. The story could have reported on the potential flaws of the study design.
(4 stars) Overall, a good job, but the story does not mention any possible downsides of depression screening or cost issues, or reimbursement as a barrier to effective screening.
(4 stars) This was a well-reported story on computer-aided reading of mammograms. But two related flaws, and one contextual issue, prevent it from providing a higher level of reader service.
(2 stars) The story failed to: evaluate the quality of the evidence, quantify the benefits, mention that the study has only been presented at a scientific meeting and has not been published and peer-reviewed.
(2 stars) An uninformative piece about options for angiogram/angioplasty insertion sites – a “gee whiz” story about something supposedly newer and better devoid of discussion of evidence and of tradeoffs.
(5 stars) Good job explaining that breast self examination is a personal decision, and depending on how someone feels about the increased risk of biopsy can determine whether she wants to do it or not.
(4 stars) This story rightly points out that there are serious questions about the methodology and that the details of the study have not been made available. Overall, a very well-balanced piece.
(2 stars) A totally uncritical story about a new radiation treatment that even referred to the manufacturer as "the industry leader." The story reads more like a paid ad than independent journalism.