In less than 350 words, this story did a fine job of summarizing a study that one ob-gyn noted "should serve as a cautionary tale that just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better."
One criticism: the story did not cite anything from an editorial accompanying the study in JAMA – an editorial that gave good perspective.
Nonethless, it was a good job in a limited space.
We’ll give the story a satisfactory score on this criterion because it acknowledged that the ThinPrep is "more expensive." But we wish it had provided the actual cost comparison.
The story delivered the key line from one ob-gyn observer, that the study "should serve as a cautionary tale that just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better. "
But the story also included the lead author’s reminder that ThinPrep samples could be used to test for human papillomavirus, which causes nearly all cervical cancers. And the rate at which tests needed to be done again was one-third lower with the ThinPrep than with conventional Pap smears.
The story nicely summarized that the authors of the study in JAMA noted that that "because of a lack of well-designed comparative studies, convincing evidence to determine the superiority of either method" didn’t exist. And that it was based on a raondomized trial of 90,000 Dutch women screened with either ThinPrep or a conventional Pap smear.
There was no disease mongering in the story.
The story included multiple expert perspectives.
In a very concise article, the story did a good job comparing the ThinPrep and convention pap smear tests.
The story leads with the fact that the ThinPrep test dominates the market.
The story was about efficacy of cervical cancer screening tests, so this criterion is not really applicable in this case.
It is clear that the story did not rely on a news release.