Given the vividness of anecdotal accounts, the research details in a story like this must be a dominant and detailed part of the story.
That said, we think the story would have been stronger had it been more clear on the industry connections behind the study, and if it had discussed availability of the vaccine–especially if a new outbreak occurs.
Based on research, to what degree do these various screening methods save lives? The story doesn’t say.
Health care is full of potential conflicts of interest — not even water consumption is off limits.
But the story left out some outstanding questions that remain about the treatment, such as the fact that we don’t know if the benefits are temporary.
However, the story appears to mischaracterize current treatment options for the disease, and overlooked the potential harms of gene therapy.
The story also would have benefitted from an independent source to comment on the findings.
This brief piece announces FDA approval of a blood glucose monitor that does not require blood testing via finger pricks.
It would have helped to see the study’s results characterized in more absolute terms, and the quality of its evidence discussed in slightly more detail.
Many news outlets covered this research, which could leave readers with the impression the finding is closer to clinical use than it really is.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
.@HoltzReport takes on Harvard conflict of interest policy over poop-based sports drink company (that's right, poop) https://t.co/UceFbLtlY3
You had my click at "poop-based drink." 😬 But also v interesting stuff in there about Harvard's COI rules. https://t.co/RynR6LN968
Tips for Understanding Studies
