See this new website, which could be a terrific resource for journalists and for the general public.
But also be aware of the suggestion that the NNT or number needed to treat be complemented by the NTN – the number treated needlessly,
Thanks to Dr. Russell Harris of the University of North Carolina for this tip. Dr. Harris was my gracious host this week as I spoke to his MD-MPH students about our HealthNewsReview.org project and also to members of the division of general internal medicine. Many new friends.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Graham
October 1, 2010 at 12:27 pmThanks for the linkage! Part of our hope is to make the site accessible for people at large, so we can have honest discussions about benefit and harm (based on the best but still often flawed data available).
Like the NTN idea as well.
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
October 3, 2010 at 4:25 pmI’m a bit concerned about theNNT.com, which offers “data” put together by what’s listed as a team of ER physicians. I hope they get their statistics and NNT calculations right: Otherwise, their results could be dangerous/misleading to journalists who read this health journalism review blog, and to the public.
Graham Walker
October 3, 2010 at 7:27 pmDr. Schattner–
All the sources for our reviews/summaries are linked in the lower half of each page, including our own evaluation of the caveats and problems with the sources and original research. They’re frequently but not always summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews, which are usually the highest-quality information out there.
I’m not sure how our specialty relates to the information; yes, many of the reviews are focused on acute illness, since that’s the data we know the best, but we’re certainly hoping to expand to other fields as well. For example, we just added a review on strength and balance training for falls in elderly patients at risk.
Our review editor, Dr. David Newman, edits all the reviews for content and accuracy, and is incredibly well-versed in the literature, and we frequently discuss how best to categorize and display the information.
I certainly agree misleading results would be concerning, but I really think this is a summary of the best data that’s out there on a topic. Are we simplifying the data? Most certainly, but I think it’s better to have a site with access to a summary and the full article than the current state of much health journalism and the public, which frequently talks about correlation as causation and frequently misinterprets and misunderstands biostatistics.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like