Do you write news releases? And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
A quarter of a percent reduced risk over a 15-year period seems speculative, not definitive.
This release reads like an advertisement with pseudo-science added for flavor.
The release would have been more complete with a discussion on cost, harms and a better description of the evidence.
Such language is a red flag and, as with this news release, sometimes comes from the very people we’re counting on to accurately interpret the data for us — the lead authors.
The release on a new device for diagnosing brain injury skims over cost and evidence while relying on sensational language.
This release is far from precise when describing key attributes of this software for diagnosing stroke.
This news release focuses on a mouse study of an experimental ultrasound therapy for dementia-like condition in mice. It’s also an example of hype over a therapy with no known benefit in humans.
The news release doesn’t provide any data. Nor does it mention how memory, performance, motivation, or mood were measured.
The release asserts that stem cells are a promising approach to regenerating a torn meniscus, but the data are very limited.
While robotic surgery may be “not inferior” to standard therapy for bladder cancer, it does have added costs and a longer procedure time.
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims