NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Promoting screening irrespective of the evidence may garner votes but will not create healthier voters

Posted By



That’s a line from a commentary entitled, “The Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening: Understanding the Trade-offs,” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week by Dartmouth’s Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz.

Blogger Merrill Goozner did a good job summarizing the piece. So far he’s the only journalist I’ve seen who’s written about the article as I go to post this.

As the authors wrote:

“…people need balanced information. Simplistic slogans touting only the benefit are deceptive. Simple, standardized summaries (and they provide a table of some) about the benefits and harms of testing would help foster good decision making.”

That’s something journalists struggle with every day in telling health care stories – as we’ve shown over and over on

You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.