Relying on an inflated relative risk reduction and failing to discuss potential harms, this story gives readers a too-rosy view of the likely impact of a new class of cholesterol-lowering medicines.
This story about the benefits of bystander CPR leans heavily on the opinions of CPR advocates and cardiac arrest survivors who received CPR. It cites no real evidence, and never acknowledges that procedure has a low success rate and carries potential for harm.
The failure to discuss potential harms of more widespread testing in more than a general way is a significant omission in this story.
With some wording changes and a few more statistics, this pretty good story about aspirin for cancer prevention would have become demonstrably better.
This bare-bones report on a drug trial was probably aimed at investors — but will almost certainly reach consumers as well. We think both groups would be interested in the very high cost of this drug combination.
FoxNews.com labels this piece as “news” – not as an opinion piece by one physician. To use the columnist’s own words in a different context, “I find this outrageous.”
The short piece in the Washington Post’s “To Your Health” blog was also short on useful information. Our review highlights some areas where the story could have deployed its limited text more effectively.
This is a case where the body text of the story sends one message, but the headline and photos send a different one.
Tips for Understanding Studies