(2 stars) This segment on MRI to help assess heart disease risk could have been much improved with just a few additional statements. The reporter did try, at least, to inject some cautious interpretation.
(0 stars) Confusing segment on different potential benefits and harms of oral contraceptives. But viewers’ heads were left spinning – a side effect of morning shows. All in all, a vague and vapid piece.
(4 stars) Pretty thorough job – especially compared with the CBS story on same topic. Could have been improved by explaining caveats about the strength of the evidence – and giving more context on benefits.
(1 star) Story about a drug company’s announcement of positive study results fails readers in every important way. Distressing to see such a credulous, feeble, negligent piece published anywhere in the NYT.
(1 star) Story about a drug company’s announcement of positive study results fails readers in every important way. Distressing to see such a credulous, feeble, negligent piece published anywhere in the NYT.
(0 stars) No discussion of costs – which are significant – nor of evidence, which is limited. Instead of data, the segment gushed calling it "godsend…really exciting…very important…could be lifesaving."
(0 stars) The advantages were unsubstantiated, the harms unstated and the effectiveness exaggerated. Network TV promoting an off-label use. Disease mongering at its worst. A new low. Stay tuned for lower.
(3 stars) Another story about the growing uses for robotic surgery. But the story gave no data or evidence, framed it like playing video games, and failed to put into context of other available procedures.
(2 stars) Reads like a drug co. news release. Costs (several thousand a month) not mentioned. Woefully incomplete tally of benefits and harms. Women with advanced breast cancer deserve better information.
(4 stars) Overall good job on an interesting study. However it could have done a better job explaining study results in context (how many out of how many), and in more fully describing the harms of statins.
(4 stars) Accurate reporting on results of a study but at the same time engendered enthusiasm not supported by the current data. It’s only been shown to reduce risk factor levels in a short-term study.
(2 stars) Story about a treatment option for which there is little evidence on harms and benefits. Did a better job selling the physician’s new book than it did in informing readers with balanced information.
(4 stars)