(5 stars) Excellent report that tempered the promising results by projecting potential annual cost estimates of the drug at $10,000, discussing harms, and pointing out the drugmaker’s role in the study.
(2 stars) Story on implanted pacemaker for HBP called it “a breakthrough…a game-changer…proven highly effective…could help millions.” Long on hyperbole but short on evidence, cost or independent voices.
(3 stars) The story featured only one patient who had the most dramatic results, giving an exaggerated estimate of treatment benefit. Failed to mention the weaker results in others in the trial.
(4 stars) Very good job on many levels, reporting on new evidence showing some back surgeries aren’t effective. Stated the findings clearly and used a number of sources with different viewpoints.
(5 stars) Excellent, provocative exploration of critical issues involving the tension between prostate cancer treatment options, payment responsibility, patient choice, and evidence on risks and benefits.
(3 stars) This report on vitamin D levels in children committed disease-mongering, linking vitamin D to other conditions that are common and can be caused by many other things. So it also fear-mongered.
(2 stars) A story about spinal cord injury with no certain human application that implied just the opposite.The fact that the study was done on rats does not appears until 2 minutes into a 3-minute segment.
(2 stars) Less would have been more. Taped report wasn’t bad. But the in-studio chat with physician-contributor threw off the balance of the entire segment.
(3 stars) Gives short shrift to a recent trial published in JAMA, never explaining what drug was used in the study, how long were the participants treated, and whether the results are clinically significant.
(2 stars) This segment puts a check next to nearly every item on a list of Health Journalism Worst Practices. It calls the device new, revolutionary, miracle. The device is none of these. Terribly misleading.
(2 stars) Miscasts an experimental obesity Rx as potential “silver bullet” for people wanting to drop a few pounds. Oddly refers to interviewee’s potential conflicts of interest as evidence of expertise. Huh?
(4 stars)
