Story doesn’t explain the evidence behind the guidelines. Readers learn of the guideline controversy but get little information to help them evaluate their credibility, applicability or relevance.
This story doesn’t discuss what readers reasonably want to know: what the guidelines are based on, how they might apply to them, and what the risks of getting the screening–or not getting it–are.
Well-organized story that could have been improved by noting the limitations of drawing conclusions from scientific meeting talks, and by comparing radiation risks of the two approaches studied.
This story, on a novel approach to infusing chemotherapy for a brain tumor, just goes to show what a careful, engaged reporter can accomplish when given sufficient time and space to write a story.
(4 stars) HOTELS This story had one major flaw – suggesting that this was about withholding needed care – a misguided suggestion that overshadowed the task force’s call for improved shared decision-making.
The story provides a reasonable amount of information on the study and places it in context of other studies and in context of other treatment options.
Excellent job describing the promise and controversy of lung cancer screening. Overall, a fine piece of reporting, following up on a state court ruling.
Good overall but with several significant flaws: no disclosure of conflict of interest in one key interviewee, reliance on a single sensational patient anecdote, and no information on harms.
(1 star) A "fountain of youth" anti-aging story that the paper simply picked up from an overseas paper and treated as its own – even putting its own reporter’s byline on the story! Sensational.No evidence.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
