This story includes a clear explanation of the study design and the quantified benefits of an online intervention to prevent depression, but it overlooked an important limitation to the study.
This news story’s call to “drink up” for your “microbiome” mischaracterizes the major scientific contributions of two studies on gut flora.
At least one personal account of the harms would have brought the story into better balance.
This well-written story is a captivating read, but needed evidence-based details on the challenges facing researchers in moving gene therapy out of mice studies and into actual interventions.
The story relies heavily on anecdotes, and while these personal stories are weighed against the perspectives of outside researchers, with much research being cited, we are never given needed details on what that research contains.
Lacking independent sources and a robust discussion of the study’s limitations, this story was thin on any information not already provided in the news release.
This story fails to counter rosy statements by a physician and a patient with realistic assessments of the potential benefits and pitfalls of an unproven procedure for a fatal disease with no known cure.
For a study as confusing as this one from the New England Journal of Medicine, this brief story does a good job of describing it, as well as some its limitations.
Tips for Understanding Studies