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.
We found no glaring problems with the reporting of this valid story, so it gets a top 5-star score. But we question whether the subject matter warranted front-page attention in a 2,000-word article. (An earlier comment about a BMJ/BBC report has been deleted. We erroneously connected that report with the subject of this story. They concerned different product types.)
This is one of the finest, most complete health care news stories we’ve reviewed in a long time. The fact that its topic was a sensitive, confusing, controversial one adds to our appreciation of the journalism.
While the story gets a relatively high grade, it got unsatisfactory scores on 3 of our most important criteria: costs, harms, and evidence.
Is there a journalistic love affair with invasive interventions for resistant high blood pressure?
This WebMD story never reported the main finding of the study, which is that beet juice had no effect on blood pressure in the study overall. The headline, “Beet Juice Lowers Blood Pressure,” is not supported by the published research paper. The story only gets a 3-star score because of satisfactory grades on the easy criteria; it flunked all of the more vital criteria. Don’t judge a story by its star score. Read the entire review.
This story promises that “better prostate cancer testing” may be right around the corner, even as the researchers and editorial writers warn of limitations and “significant hurdles.”
This New York Times piece about an experimental leukemia treatment captures the excitement of this gene therapy research with a gripping account of one patient’s story. But we don’t think it delivers enough of the cautionary notes that we feel are mandatory with this kind of reporting. The competing Philadelphia Inquirer story was more restrained but missed some important details that the Times delivered.
Less sensational than the competing New York Times piece, this riveting read would have been better with a few minor improvements.
This story about research on an experimental approach for lupus skin conditions raises more questions than answers regarding effectiveness.