This story called the technology a "breakthrough." In contrast, the AP story quoted the same researcher emphasizing "We’re not giving people back 20-year-old eyes." Tone and framing are important in health care stories. This one relied a bit too much on the enthusiasm that came from a company news release.
Since the story was posted a day later than AP’s, we don’t understand why it had to rely on quotes from a company news release.
There was no discussion of cost as there was in the competing AP story.
The story adequately quantified the benefits seen in the study that led to FDA approval.
The story did quantify the harms: "the IMT is large enough to pose a threat to the cornea of the eye, leading to extensive loss of cells essential for maintaining the clarity of the cornea. In the study, 10 eyes had unresolved corneal edema, or swelling, caused by trapped fluid. Five such cases resulted in corneal transplants. The FDA says the five-year risk for unresolved corneal edema, corneal decompensation, and corneal transplant are 9.2%, 6.8%, and 4.1%, respectively."
The story did an adequate job explaining the study that led to FDA approval.
There was a form of disease-mongering in that the story gave the big picture of 8 million Americans with macular degeneration, 2 million of whom have had significant loss of vision. But the story didn’t give an estimate of the number of people who might benefit from this approach – which is less than 8 million or less than 2 million. As the competing AP story explained, "But it’s only for a subset of the nearly 2 million Americans with advanced macular degeneration… Those 75 and older, with a certain degree of vision loss, who also need a cataract removed." So the 8 million figure is almost irrelevant in this discussion.
No independent experts were quoted – only quotes from a company news release.
The story explained that "Despite advancements in therapies for macular degeneration, ‘retina specialists still did not have a treatment for the many wet and dry AMD patients who progressed to end-stage disease.’ "
The focus of the story was on FDA approval of the device.
The novelty of this approach and the void it would fill in treatment is explained.
At least the story acknowledged that much of its information came from news releases, but we don’t understand why it was necessary to rely on news releases. The story was posted a day later than AP’s. Why no independent interviewing?