This story related to the controversial Essure contraception device lacked most of the basic information that would allow readers to evaluate the procedure being discussed.
This story capably summarizes the researcher’s conclusions, but doesn’t address the limitations or implications of the research. There was plenty more ground to cover here.
This generally solid story about new guidelines for clot removal during strokes would have benefited from a few statistics describing the benefits.
With sweeping, unsupported statements about the benefits of 3-D colonoscopies, this report reads more like a news release from a device company rather than an objective piece of health journalism.
This story did a reasonable job of covering an individual study, but the piece raises questions about whether this early-stage research was worth writing about at all.
This is an incomplete piece of fluff journalism that makes many unsupported claims about the anti-cancer properties of various spices.
This reasonably strong coverage of a new pancreatic cancer test needed a more aggressive rebuttal of claims to “perfect accuracy.”
This story about a new pancreatic cancer test didn’t dig deeper than a news release announcing the study results.
Tips for Understanding Studies