(0 stars) For the 2nd time in a month ABC devoted a big chunk of airtime to promote one man’s experience and his new book. But again they failed to evaluate the evidence in what felt like an infomercial.
(4 stars) Good job presenting the findings of a significant study, describing the results accurately and with sufficient details. But no discussion of costs and no independent expert quoted.
(4 stars) What a refreshing experience that this paper reported that a magic bullet may be losing its magic! Kudos for not simply reporting the study du jour, but for painting a broader big picture context.
(5 stars) Solid job balancing positive study findings with negative ones, providing opportunity for a skeptic to air concerns. Good to see a newspaper devote more than 1,000 words to a story these days!
(2 stars) This story medicalizes a normal state of health – a few additional pounds or inches. The story lacked evidence and data from the alleged 50,000 who’ve had it – an astoundingly poor use of air time.
(2 stars) 11 patients? Would this story have been reported so prominently if it weren’t the week between Christmas and New Year’s? No costs, no harms, no independent analysis, classic disease-mongering.
(3 stars) The paper slashed an original AP story from 939 words down to 369. It’s premature to say this will "end any doubt” on the risk-benefit ratio. We think many women would find this story sorely lacking.
(2 stars) No data on safety or effectiveness, and no mention of costs. For a story about an exotic new technology that might replace a standard practice whose cost is well established, this is inexplicable.
(4 stars) Women taking these drugs may be alarmed about the increased fracture risk. So the story should have given absolute risks, and discussed risk-benefit implications.
(5 stars) The story does a great job of making a very complex concept easier for the reader to understand – demonstrating the downsides of our love of imaging pictures. We need a lot more like this. Bravo!
(3 stars) Good job explaining the diet, but the story didn’t differentiate between impact on risk factors and impact on cardiovascular disease Itself. And no critical evaluation of the “metabolic syndrome.”
(4 stars) The story met most of our criteria. However, it fell short in quantifying the benefits of treatment. What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured?
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)