Category: Your Health Matters

(4 stars)
This was a well-reported story on computer-aided reading of mammograms. But two related flaws, and one contextual issue, prevent it from providing a higher level of reader service.

(2 stars)
The story failed to: evaluate the quality of the evidence, quantify the benefits, mention that the study has only been presented at a scientific meeting and has not been published and peer-reviewed.

(2 stars)
An uninformative piece about options for angiogram/angioplasty insertion sites – a “gee whiz” story about something supposedly newer and better devoid of discussion of evidence and of tradeoffs.

(5 stars)
Good job explaining that breast self examination is a personal decision, and depending on how someone feels about the increased risk of biopsy can determine whether she wants to do it or not. 

(4 stars)
This story rightly points out that there are serious questions about the methodology and that the details of the study have not been made available. Overall, a very well-balanced piece.

(2 stars)
A totally uncritical story about a new radiation treatment that even referred to the manufacturer as "the industry leader."  The story reads more like a paid ad than independent journalism.

(2 stars)
This “important medical alert” presents no evidence or sources. It mentions liver transplants four times, perhaps inaccurately and unfairly generating anxiety in parents of overweight and obese kids.

(2 stars)
An alarmist piece focusing on the number of children needing liver transplants for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.  But is this a true concern for most people, only for some and if so, for whom?

(4 stars)
A major flaw of the story was that it did not provide a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage?

(2 stars)
The results have not been replicated.  It was done in mice in a laboratory model of induced diabetes. This was not emphasized enough – yet references to cures and holy grails were included.

(5 stars)
One of the best stories written yet about the complicated topic of the place for the HPV vaccine in health care. Thank goodness there still is room in daily papers for a 4,100-word piece like this.
More…

(1 star)
This way-too-brief story fails on almost every count.  How the drug compares to other medicines, its side effects, costs,  and long-term outcomes in terms of benefits and harms are not addressed.

More…