(4 stars) The story reported that the drug improved symptoms, but never explained which symptoms. We also yearned for interviews with more lupus experts rather than folks with commercial ties to the drug.
(3 stars) The story missed a good chance to explore the possible trade-off of benefit now for increased risk later – and how that may be a factor in the decision-making between doctors and patients.
(2 stars) Woefully inadequate reporting on animal research on a weight loss drug. Makes the unfounded leap that this is a "promising new drug that could ultimately impact how to control obesity and diabetes.”
(5 stars) Good job highlighting public policy implications of medical research findings – reporting not only the conclusions of a study but examining a state law that requires insurers to subsidize CT scans.
(2 stars) The opening statement that "thousands of lives could have been saved" if patients had been prescribed clozapine is simply not adequately explained or justified. Costs were also not discussed.
(2 stars) Another TV story that doesn’t stress the limitations of animal research. Included no independent voices who were likely to be critical. Called it “groundbreaking” without giving history or context.
(2 stars) Hyperlocal hyperbole. A procedure that’s only been tested for a new use in animals was hailed as something that “could revolutionize cardiac care” and ”could save and improve thousands of lives.”
(0 stars) It is hard to find anything in this story that distinguishes it from an advertisement. Indeed, people with hearing loss would get a more balanced presentation by viewing the manufacturer’s web site.
(1 star) News you can use? This was news no one can use yet – because it was in mice. The physician-reporter twice called the study results “very encouraging.” For all the mice in the viewing audience.
(4 stars) A clear alert on potential hazards of using bioengineered proteins to promote bone growth in spinal fusion for upper spine pain. But it doesn’t discuss nonsurgical alternatives or costs.
(1 star) CBS claimed an “exclusive” on this “cutting edge, trailblazing, major advance.” But it didn’t emphasize that there is no evidence of benefit. And it didn’t discuss potential harms or other options.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
