The story’s headline states: “Virtual reality to help detect early risk of Alzheimer’s.” That is misleading. The researchers haven’t even recruited study participants yet, much less conducted the study or analyzed the results.
This leaves both investors and lay audiences without enough information to evaluate how useful the new product will be, should it pass muster with the FDA.
Breakthrough? Based on the story of one patient? We’re told the procedure hasn’t been done often. But how often, and what happened to the other women?
The story mostly just rehashes a drug company news release.
Did the study findings really earn a label of “game-changing?”
This story could have provided a bit more on costs, alternatives, and how this study was performed.
It’s too bad those comments don’t appear until the end.
This story relies on a news release, and it’s full of holes. Cost, harms, evidence, who might benefit — all go unaddressed.
The story played up wishful conjecture about slashing dementia cases in half.
One girl’s story illustrates harms as well as benefits.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
Tips & Resources for Analyzing Health Care Claims
