Here’s a quick note to draw attention to some of the 5-star efforts we’ve recently looked at:
Our reviewers thought Maggie Fox of NBC did an exceptional job with her piece, Cancer drug Keytruda keeps some patients alive for 3 years. Excerpt: “… a nice job of walking readers through the study’s numbers, how pembrolizumab might work, the side effects, costs, and other details. It also cites several researchers who weren’t involved with the study and addresses a key issue with hype by stating the study’s finding ‘doesn’t mean a cure.’”
Reviewers also praised Julia Belluz’s piece, This new device claims to be the “off switch for menstrual pain.” And it might actually work, calling it “a great example of how the media should deal with claims made about new devices.”
And they had accolades for the NIH’s news release, Eylea outperforms Avastin for diabetic macular edema with moderate or worse vision loss. They said it “provides just about everything readers need to know about an important study.”
Reviewers gave these stories and news releases 4 stars for meeting almost all of our 10 criteria:
Philadelphia Inquirer: Doctors test new device for uterine fibroids
HealthDay: Could nasal spray curtail nighttime bathroom trips?
Wall Street Journal: Cure for Digital Addicts’ ‘Text Neck’?
Other noteworthy items that we did not review:
STAT has been keeping a close eye on the NFL concussion research story with: After a public fall, face of NFL concussion denial resurfaces. and NFL “improperly attempted to influence” concussion research funding.
FiveThirtyEight explained, in compelling detail, why “Theranos Is Wrong: We Don’t Need More Blood Tests.”
John Fauber at MedPageToday examined how pharma influences disease definitions with: Lowering the Bar: Medicine in the 21st Century
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, also writing at STAT, brought us another of their periodic “Five-Year Watch” columns, this time scrutinizing Why a drug that lowers cholesterol doesn’t save lives.
Allow us to shine a light on some things that fall outside our regular review…
In what will be our last 5-Star Friday celebrating quality journalism in 2015, we take…
After systematically reviewing 122 PR news releases in the past year, our reviewers have only graded…
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A guide to specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and other medical testing concepts. https://t.co/wDwTktPiWg @HealthNewsRevu
.@HealthNewsRevu, qui annonce son arrêt en décembre prochain après 12 ans d'activité. Ce site, véritable chien de garde de l'info santé, n'a eu de cesse de lutter contre la mésinformation, la désinformation et les conflits d'intérêt dans le journalisme médico-scientifique.
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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
Allow us to shine a light on some things that fall outside our regular review…
In what will be our last 5-Star Friday celebrating quality journalism in 2015, we take…
After systematically reviewing 122 PR news releases in the past year, our reviewers have only graded…