(4 stars) Given all the previous hype about statin drugs for otherwise apparently healthy people, it is important that journalists bring consumers the latest scientific doubts about this approach – and this story generally did a very good job of that.
(3 stars) A front page story based on a study that hasn’t even been presented yet much less published. Feels like marketing for a test that is in the early stages of development. Maybe it’ll be a breakthrough but the story presents it as a near fait accompli.
(3 stars) This story meets most of our review criteria, and yet the glowing tone of the story may give readers an excessively rosy view of the experimental approach.
(4 stars) Better than the WebMD story on the same study because CNN discussed potential harms and had several sources. But this is one instance where the 4-star score based on our 10 criteria seems too high. When you get the basics wrong, you got the story wrong.
(2 stars) While the use of new technology to provide better solutions to common problems is a source of hope, this story focused nearly exclusively on this aspect without questioning the magnitude of the benefits vs. harms and without giving a realistic evaluation of the costs.
(4 stars) While the article is bookended by optimistic anecdotes and sometimes its tone overreaches the available evidence, it charts a mostly cautious course through a tricky debate, calling out many caveats to balance the preliminary hope.
(4 stars) In just 245 words, this NPR blog brief packed almost as much information as two longer stories we reviewed about the same study of the drug tranexamic acid (TXA).
(1 stars) A story apparently driven by a news release – providing little context, no cost information and a confusing jumble of numbers that leaves readers with more questions than answers.
