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 surprisingly fawning, one-sided and incomplete story.
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.
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.
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.
According to promising early research, treatment with antibodies naturally produced in the body appears to halt the memory-robbing progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
What we have now are a hypothesis, a pile of forward-looking statements, and a study that isn’t sure to be funded, won’t start for a year, and will take 18 months before telling us what it found. How does that timeframe jibe with the first paragraph’s statement that biomarkers "may soon make it possible to pinpoint brain injuries with a simple blood test"?
There are multiple ways to search our reviews. You may search by keyword, news source or review rating.