A relatively clear breakdown of the unclear picture of whether statins may help in this specific area of research.
One thing that made this story better than its WebMD competition was the expert source who put this study in the context of other studies that have been done and raised questions about statistical problems in the study (although we wish we’d heard more about this).
The story says statins can cost $5 a day or more.
Only relative risk reduction figures were used. So when the story said "30% less likely" – readers need to know "30% of what?"
The story explained that statins may cause liver problems and muscle damage, "although the likelihood of that is low."
The story raised ample questions about the quality of the evidence.
No disease mongering was evident.
The senior study author and one independent expert were quoted.
The alternative of NOT taking statins was raised: "However, not every prostate cancer patient may need to take them."
The story states that "statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs in America."
The story explained that there has been prior conflicting research on this question.
Because of multiple sources quoted, it does not appear that the story relied on a news release.