(0 stars) This story is a marketing coup for a hospital, but its relevance to most cancer patients is unclear. This story failed on costs and on context, cheerleading for an approach that lacks evidence.
(4 stars) Story about the failure of Celexa to control repetitive behaviors in autistic kids does a solid job explaining why the study matters and its conclusions can be trusted. But read about 3 key flaws.
(3 stars) The story conveys the impression that the surgery is effective without providing any credible information to verify this. No mention of risks or costs. Egregious disease-mongering example.
(0 stars) The best thing that can be said about this story is that it was short. For anyone thinking of lycopene supplements, this story failed to deliver the information they would need to make an informed choice.
(4 stars) A well written, balanced story about a trial which created a buzz at a national meeting of oncologists. It was clear, hopeful without hyping the new treatment, and included expert comment.
(2 stars) High drama about one opera singer’s struggle with and treatment for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. But the story lacks info on costs, evidence, and harms. And it quotes only one expert.
(4 stars) This story on a study showing that compression stockings don’t reduce stroke patients’ risk of blood clots explains results well and gets independent perspectives. But it didn’t mention costs.
(1 star) This story makes many of the mistakes typical of reports about tests intended to detect diseases early. It highlights potential and unproven benefits, while largely ignoring the harms and costs.
(2 stars) This story grapples with a complex issue – screening and treatment of major depressive disorder in adolescents. But the story is long on anecdotes and short on evidence for the new recommendations.
(5 stars) Thorough reporting, providing a valuable service by warning readers of the shaky basis and likely harms of Lupron treatment of children with autism. They weighed the claims and explained the evidence.
(2 stars) The story didn’t fully examine the evidence behind new advice for vitamin D supplementation. Lacked complete list of side effects or discussion of lack of long-term data on higher doses in children.
(2 stars) Report on an abstract at the ASCO meeting about neuroblastoma research – failed to provide information on costs, harms, or caveats on flaws of drawing conclusions from scientific meeting abstracts.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
