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....
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....
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....
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....
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. ...
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....
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. ...
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. ...
Good job - with the only exception being a significant one - no discussion of the possible limitations of interpreting study results presented in a phone call – not in a peer reviewed publication.
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....
