Category: Your Health Matters

(2 stars)
ABC covers FDA’s OK of a new depression treatment: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). But it fails to help viewers understand the potential benefits and harms and the limited availability.

(3 stars)
This story, on recent approval of transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients who had not responded to antidepressant therapy, failed to deliver some important background and context.

(3 stars)
This report on an advisory panel recommendation that all adult smokers be vaccinated for pneumococcal disease is accurate as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

(4 stars)
Good job explaining the design of the current study and the relevance of the findings to patients, discussing costs, and seeking multiple expert opinions.

(3 stars)
This story is flawed in two fundamental ways: Its sourcing and its lack of reporting on the vaccine’s effectiveness. A self-interested party should not be a story’s central source.

(4 stars)
A skeptical look at the heavily marketed procedures known as minimally invasive total joint replacements. Good reporting, but a more complete accounting of the evidence would have helped readers.

(4 stars)

This segment could have been far more informative and helpful for viewers.  It’s case where a news release – from the American College of Pediatrics – is more informative than the news segment. 

(1 star)
A very troubled story – cheerleading for virtual colonoscopy (“science fiction..Star Wars..video game..Disney World”) – never mentioning an independent review questioning the evidence for the test. 

(5 stars)
The story raises appropriate questions about evidence for a new genetic test of a woman’s risk of a common breast cancer. Expert interviews suggest that the test may have more cons than pros.
 

(4 stars)
Too often a story about a developing medical technology used locally reads like a gee-whiz rave. This well-reported, judiciously written story is a welcome exception.

(4 stars)
AP reports on a study that feels like an early phase drug trial in which the exact dose and benefit are not established.  The story could have reported on the potential flaws of the study design.

(4 stars)
Overall, a good job, but the story does not mention any possible downsides of depression screening or cost issues, or reimbursement as a barrier to effective screening.