Rather than accepting "scientist-speak," why didn’t the story explain what difference a change in “sustained virologic response” meant in people’s lives? And what does “cure” mean to readers?
(4 stars) In the US, fertility treatment is a big business. This story describes one type of supplement for fertility support, analyzing claims with some healthy skepticism.
(2 stars) The story states that the study "proves" certain benefits. That’s overstatement. The results suggest a link between treatment and outcomes but prove nothing.
(2 stars) The story fails by not discussing the complicated findings with experts who could explain the implications of the data. Insufficient sourcing for a story that needed expert perspective.
(5 stars) In less than 350 words, this story did a fine job of summarizing a study that one ob-gyn noted "should serve as a cautionary tale that just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better."
(4 stars) This was a well-written article about bariatric surgery and resultant effects on diabetes that would have been much stronger with a discussion of costs of treatment and absolute risk reduction stats.
(1 star) This naïve and misleading report reflects either an astonishing ignorance of – or calculated disregard for – the basic tenets of reporting on medical research.
(2 stars) Story profiles only one satisfied study subject, instead of presenting a more accurate clinical picture of who may benefit and to what extent. No independent experts, no discussion of costs or harms.
(5 stars) Informative, valuable story that can be used by readers to prepare questions to help them assess the relative value in the treatment options available.
(0 stars) A 183-word story just can’t do much. And this story didn’t. The paper clearly copied a BBC story and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
