Unwarranted leaps of faith were taken from a preliminary safety trial in just 6 people.
The story could have provided more helpful context about potential benefits of the drugs in question. But the story’s warning about the potential for disease-mongering in this area was especially salient.
This story about possible links between folic acid supplements and reduced autism risk tries to include enough caveats to put the study results in the proper perspective. Compared to an LA Times story we also reviewed, it is different in detail, but similar in overall effect. Both were better than a competing CNN blog story.
Like a Reuters Health story we also reviewed, this story has an enticing headline about an apparent link between folic acid supplements and reduced risk of autism. But it then explains to readers how to put the results in perspective.
An incomplete and overly optimistic story about a treatment that hasn’t advanced beyond a test tube.
Excellent job on a story that received very little mainstream news media attention.
Better in some respects than the competing HealthDay coverage, but worse in others. Neither story got at the heart of why this study is important.
This story attempted to address some complicated nutrition science, but didn’t quite measure up. TIME‘s report was similar.
This was a superficial report that passed along the main findings of a study, but not much else.