To end this week, in which we had new reasons to question the ways in which health science studies are reported, it may be particularly fitting that we introduce a new “Five-star Friday” feature, to shine a light on recent news stories or news releases that received top 5-star scores from our reviewers.
In May alone, 5 news stories and 1 2 news releases got top honors. (An additional 5-star news release review was published on Saturday May 30.)
5-star news story reviews
Associated Press: Balanced, complete evaluation of study on vitamin supplements for skin cancer prevention
The Wall Street Journal: Balanced, insightful report on tradeoffs of treating premature babies at edge of survival
The Philadelphia Inquirer highlights FDA “loophole” allowing use of heart device without testing
The New York Times (twice): The Times shines in coverage of new injection for double chins and The Times offers informative breakdown on the value of lung cancer screening
(4-star scores were recorded this month for stories by NPR, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News.)
5-star news release reviews
Other recent gems:
Tara Haelle’s piece for the NPR Shots blog, dismantling a study, a news release, and news stories that “oversold findings” about Hib vax preventing leukemia. She writes: “The experience reaffirmed the lessons I’ve learned in my years of reporting on vaccines and other scientific research: Be wary of grand claims, get outside perspectives on new research and never, ever rely only on the press release.”
MedPageToday: “Only 3% of patients with stable angina received all the information necessary to make an informed decision about undergoing angiography and possible percutaneous coronary intervention.”
The Sydney Morning Herald‘s story about an article by Ray Moynihan In the journal PLOS One: “Public Opinions about Overdiagnosis” – an Australian survey that concluded, “A small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions.”
On Newsworks: “When inaccurate science stories go viral and spiral out of control.” Excerpt:
“It was a small news station in Albuquerque,” she said. “News stations have a long and glorious history of sending people out to swab various surfaces for science to find bacteria on them. So they apparently sent one of their reporters out with a microbiologist, swabbed a few beards and ‘oh my goodness there is bacteria in your facial hair and some of it is similar to the bacteria that is found in your gastrointestinal tract.'”
It quickly escalated from that to “hey, there’s poop in your beard” and “your beard is as dirty as a toilet.”
Not in our gem collection:
The Telegraph reported that “erectile dysfunction can be cured by drinking coffee.”
Dr. David Samadi’s news release announcing, “Free Consultation for Patients Newly Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer” via the website ProstateCancer 911.com. Is he the Oz of urology?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
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.
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