In what will be our last 5-Star Friday celebrating quality journalism in 2015, we take a look back at recently reviewed stories and news releases that have set a high standard for excellence and earned 5-star ratings from our reviewers.
This HealthDay story, “Breast-feeding linked to reduced risk of preemie eye problem,” by Kathleen Doheny, is a great example of the balance that we look for in health news stories. Our reviewers said it gave readers a clear view of the big picture on a condition called retinopathy of prematurity. Review excerpt: “The article shows a good grasp of the evidence quality by reporting some of the limitations of the study, including the limitation that the study looked only at a mother’s own breast milk, not donor milk.”
With yet another observational study touting the possible lifesaving benefits of coffee, our reviewers praised Sharon Begley’s Stat piece, “Will drinking coffee extend your life?” for bringing a cupful of sanity to the discussion. Review excerpt: “The great strengths of the story include links to notable previous studies that explain the confusing ‘backstory’ of the coffee consumption/health risk debate among researchers and consumers, along with one of the best definitions of the limitations of observational studies this reviewer has read in a news article.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s “Panic disorder treatment could be breath of fresh air,” by Stacey Burling, looked at a new, unproven anti-anxiety device from multiple angles, reviewers said. Review excerpt: “Nearly across the board the story covers the important bases. Costs, availability, alternatives, the quality of the evidence, what independent experts think.”
—
Notable recent 4-star stories and news releases include the following:
Washington Post: omen with Stage 4 breast cancer survive longer if they have surgery, study shows
Joslin Diabetes Center: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
—
Stories we didn’t review, but which deserve your attention, include:
John Fauber’s investigation in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “FDA repeatedly approved cancer drug Afinitor without proof it extended life,” which reports that while this cancer drug is expensive and has a long list of nasty side effects, it doesn’t seem to help people live any longer.
Marie McCullough’s smart piece about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “More with early-stage prostate cancers choosing to wait and see before surgery,” shines a light on an alternative approach to prostate cancer management that’s gaining traction among urologists and patients. Called active surveillance, it’s a way to avoid overtreatment of cancers that might never pose a problem. “Postponing therapy to see whether cancer progresses – a strategy once portrayed as nerve-racking and foolhardy – is now seen as a key to using the PSA test more strategically,” she writes.
Over at Retraction Watch, a post headlined “Do science findings feel more novel, robust? They are – at least, in language,” reports on a BMJ study that found a whopping 880% increase in the use of positive terms such as “robust,” “novel,” and “innovative” in science abstracts since 1974. Calling it the scientific version of the “Lake Wobegon effect,” RW reported that “Most likely, authors are marketing their findings as a result of the intense pressure scientists feel to publish papers, and the value journals place on positive findings.”
Charles Piller’s deep dive into reporting on clinical trials at Stat, “Law ignored, patients at risk,” informs us that top research institutions regularly fail to post results of studies for which they receive federal funding. “The violations have left gaping holes in a federal database used by millions of patients, their relatives, and medical professionals, often to compare the effectiveness and side effects of treatments for deadly diseases such as advanced breast cancer,” Piller writes.
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