(3 stars) Story gave an incomplete picture of harms, complications and followup required with the device. Didn’t adequately compare cost or effectiveness with other methods.
(2 stars) This is the kind of story that will prompt desperate cancer patients to demand access to “the cure they saw on TV,” only to be disappointed when they hear the full facts.
(0 stars) Worst of the three network TV segments we reviewed on this same PARP inhibitor study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Just call it a breakthrough and the holy grail and call it a day.
(2 stars) More restrained in its enthusiasm than the NBC story, and offers more info on the underlying science – the real core of the news value of the new study. Still, though, too much dazzle.
(3 stars) Story generally conveys the main findings, but fails to mention treatment costs, harms or alternatives, and fails to explain the risk reduction in the most understandable way.
(3 stars) A case study in how medical news is made. Research that was not covered at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting weeks ago now IS news apparently because of a Mayo Clinic news release.
(0 stars) Classic morning show health news garbage – confusing screening and diagnostic tests and confusing viewers. And a glaring error claiming that heart CT scans had no radiation! On which planet?
(0 stars) This story on a new ultrasound imaging device stands out from other zero-star stories we’ve reviewed. This piece doesn’t merely fail to be accurate, balanced and complete. It fails to even try.
(2 stars) Takes a narrowly-focused trial and pumps it up like a grand medical advance, concluding by saying “an ancient supplement might just be the answer,” but this story can’t even get the question right.
(2 stars) Story didn’t emphasize the findings haven’t been peer-reviewed, didn’t explain absolute benefit to patients, and didn’t include independent perspectives.
(5 stars) Nice job on a story about desensitization for milk and peanut allergies. Emphasized that the work has been done in small studies so far, and that it’s far from ready for widespread use.
(2 stars) Breathless enthusiasm – not backed by facts – about new incision-free approach to weight loss surgery. Story calls it "remarkable" and "exciting" but that results aren’t as good as gastric bypass.
