As a TIME story points out, a new study on light activity and reduced mortality can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, yet the story never really explains why this is the case.
However, the story could have provided more information on the potential harms of screening tests, as well as expected costs.
A few facts from the study along with the very basics — such as cost and harms of the intervention — would have improved this release.
The study results are unpublished making follow-up and verification impossible.
Any time medical experts spout the routine lifestyle advice, reporters should press them to explain what is really likely to change for people.
While the release provides good supporting data, readers should remember that the study was not blinded or placebo controlled which introduces some limitations.
But more needed to be said about the potential harms of the treatments–which carry risks–as well as their general availability and cost.
More discussion on the potential cost savings would have rounded this release out nicely.