Limitations of the research and the rarity of nasopharyngeal carcinoma would have been helpful to include, too.
This new drug comes with many limitations, and patients deserve to know all of them.
The story also overlooks the potential harms of genetic testing.
A few more cautionary details would have helped the piece on this front.
The story was strong on one point that’s often weak in health care news reporting: The price of treatment.
The article includes most of the needed cautions, shortcomings and barriers to clinical use of what remains an experimental treatment.
The story does a thorough job of describing the test and bringing home the crucial point that the type of risk information may be more anxiety-producing than helpful.
Also, the story talks about work to develop a commercially available test, but there is no discussion of what such a test might cost.
This is an important but emerging area of science–and news coverage needs to make that clear.
The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Here's @HealthNewsRevu on why sliced-and-diced study results should be suspect. Good tips for journalists: https://t.co/Mnmh0sCOxs
Tips for Understanding Studies
