News editors should have taken a hint from the editors of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology who gave this research space for only a brief report, not thinking it worthy of a full-length article. The story exaggerates the importance and mischaracterizes the results of the study.
The story feels like a conversation among a lot of very smart people explaining hip surgery in a very compelling way, so compelling that you might miss the lack of evidence for the new method being touted in this story.
Another overly optimistic account of findings from an observational study.
A solid report that touched on most of our suggested 10 story criteria. Despite the two unsatisfactory scores, the story did a good job capturing the essence and importance of the study.
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.