(3 stars) The headline and the opening paragraph suggest that the drug does in fact work for jet lag. It is far too early to jump to that conclusion. The story also lacks context about similar drugs.
(1 star) This story was completely devoid of evidence – and of sound reporting. Fails to give context on the problems with fusion surgery. A classic example of what can go wrong in health care reporting.
Decent job conveying the key findings. But it used the wrong risk reduction figure, didn’t comment on common criticisms of meta-analyses, and didn’t differentiate among effects on different cancers.
(4 stars) This concise (only 430 word) story shows how efficiently critical elements can be relayed: the skeleton of study design, the bias implied by the funding source, the results, along expert comments.
(2 stars) This story failed to provide balance for a reader to understand the risks and benefits of this line of treatment, what other options are available, or the costs involved.
The story met most of our criteria, but we are troubled by the emphasis on the impressive-sounding 44% relative risk reduction figure, with the absolute risk reduction given only later in the piece.
(3 stars) This story fails to be skeptical about claims of self-interested researchers. Rather than pushing back against exaggerated claims of benefits, safety and guideline changes, the story magnifies them.
(4 stars) This story does a first-rate job of putting generally positive study results in context. It draws on deeper knowledge about the product and the study to avoid creating a misleading impression.
(3 stars) This story describes work on "artificial pancreas" technology. Despite a lack of data on safety or efficacy, the story unwisely presumes eventual successful clinical use.
(3 stars) The story is about a less invasive technique for removing some colon cancers and polyps. But it interviews only one expert and doesn’t emphasize the need for large studies of benefit and risk.
(1 star) A waste of air time. More like free advertising than anything you could describe as journalism. Anecdote, not evidence. No independent expert interviewed. No harms or costs discussed. Awful.
(4 stars) The story uses relative risk instead of absolute risk so readers don’t get the true size of the risk or of the benefit. It fails to describe the limitations of the study with caveats and context.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
