A business story that is just as meaningful to patients and their family members as it is to investors.
In fewer than 500 words, this story managed to satisfactorily address 7 of our 10 criteria.
It is rare that we see a story include so much in one package: educational background on the condition (fecal incontinence), interviews with 5 sources, some discussion of at least a half dozen treatment options. Our critique includes a few bits of constructive criticism.
Best story out of the three reviewed on berries and heart attacks. NPR quotes an independent expert who talks about the study’s limitations – something that the HealthDay and TIME stories failed to do.
The HealthDay story failed on many fronts – no mention of the study’s limitations, no mention of harms, and a touting of the benefits of berries without further discussion of the evidence. 2 stars here, 3 for TIME, 4 for NPR.
This story reports a new study of an established treatment: the medicated IUD used not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. But the story falls short on several of our key criteria.
It would have been helpful if the story had pursued the question about out how long it typically takes a lab discovery of this nature to go to market as an available treatment (if it proves effective in humans). Instead, a mouse study that was inadequately explained was headlined as if the “drug may help people.”
The story promises information about a “new eye test” and “a new way of identifying people at risk of glaucoma years before vision loss happens.” But the test is never adequately described. And the supposed benefits are not explained in a meaningful way.
The star score doesn’t reflect the strong points about this piece. The story was told with an engaging and interesting style, and provided historical reflections on the science and on past journalism on the topic. Still, we wish it had provided more evidence and more outside perspective.