This story summarized the study and its significance clearly in the first sentence – “When symptom-free people have heart scans to look for clogged arteries, they can end up with overtreatment and side effects.”
The story delivered powerful quotes from experts to put the findings into context for readers:
Costs were reported.
Much more clearly than the competing WSJ story, Reuters reported: “”Testing might lead to more harm than good.”
Unlike the competing Wall Street Journal story, this story was clear about the potential harms: “it’s well known that the scans expose patients to a high dose of X-rays, which can increase their likelihood of developing cancer. And the dyes used to enhance the images cause kidney damage in a significant portion of people.”
Clear, succinct summary of the evidence.
No disease mongering.
An author of the paper, and the author of an accompanying editorial were quoted.
The story ends with the researcher saying “doctors should focus on patients’ lifestyle and traditional risk factors such as smoking and obesity.”
The story was clear that the scans are not currently recommended by guidelines but that “there have been several reports of doctors doing CCTA heart scans in healthy patients, although the practice is currently discouraged by the American Heart Association.”
The relative novelty of the screening test could be deduced from the story.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.