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.
A new study says we may soon be able to take a simple blood test to find out if we have Alzheimer’s, even years before there is any sign of symptoms.
This story on a new version of a gene test meant to help women with small breast tumors make treatment decisions provides good context, but it may have obscured a key limitation of the study.
This story makes many of the mistakes typical of reports about tests intended to detect diseases early. It highlights potential and uNPRoven benefits, while largely ignoring the harms and costs.
A better test for TB is, indeed, reason for excitement, but this story glossed over some of the limitations of the research and failed to describe the real world limitations of making an expensive test widely available in cash-strapped countries.
Impressed enough by the technology to give it an award, the WSJ apparently wasn’t concerned enough to adequately explain the evidence or the risks.
Vague, inaccurate report on a very preliminary study.
Longer but not better than a competing Washington Post column about the same study. An independent voice could have helped frame these results with the appropriate context.
A surprisingly fawning, one-sided and incomplete story.
There are multiple ways to search our reviews. You may search by keyword, news source or review rating.