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.
This story does some things quite well, but still gets unsatisfactory scores on some of what we consider to be key criteria.
Solid story, better than the competing USA Today story but not quite as good as the NY Times. Our two reviewers were women with breast cancer trained in the evaluation of evidence by the National Breast Cancer Coalition’s Project LEAD. (One also got her PhD in epidemiology – not insignificant.)