This Washington Post article based on a news release is a bit skimpy on the details – no mention of costs, side effects, or study limitations. It also hypes the benefits of a drug combination that weren’t studied here and whose effectiveness is unknown.
It’s hard to argue with the conclusion here, but the messaging would have been stronger with some numbers and an independent expert voice.
This business story checked some of our boxes, but fell short on the key criteria that we think readers needed in this discussion of new Alzheimer’s drugs.
A poor-quality news release spawned weak coverage from the CBC, which is paraphrased here by Fox with even less context and nuance. Failure on many levels.
How fast should you run to live longer? This story provides clear answer based on the best available evidence.
The tone of this story is appropriately calibrated to the preliminary nature of the evidence on offer, with good discussion of study limitations.
This was a weak, incomplete report about a preliminary study of a saliva test to identify Alzheimer’s disease.
Going beyond the individual stories of the women whose cancers were detected by prenatal testing, this WSJ piece explores the underlying study data as well as the ethical and social issues raised by the research.
Tips for Understanding Studies