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.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
We wrote only about efforts that label themselves as “fact-checking” projects. You’ll see that if you read the piece.
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