HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
MedPageToday.com is primarily intended for physicians. But we think that the way they cover medical news could be a model for many consumer oriented news organizations as well. They evaluate the evidence, usually seek independent perspectives, and disclose financial conflicts of interest that authors report. We don't review them as part of our normal review routine because they do not primarily target a consumer audience as all of our other reviewees do. But they're a tough group of veteran health medical science journalists whose work is admirable.
Veteran journalist Merrill Goozner packs a wallop on his blog every day.
Author-journalist Maggie Mahar covers health policy in great depth on her blog.
Dr. Daniel Carlat's blog tackles the "tangled" politics and economics of continuing medical education.
Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman's site is an independent, publicly funded project that empowers physicians to identify and counter inappropriate pharmaceutical promotion practice.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news organization committed to in-depth coverage of health care policy and politics.
The Knight Science Journalism Tracker is a service for science journalists, created and funded by the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and launched in May 2006. The site states: "We believe that if science reporters and editors have convenient and timely access to the work of peers across the country, they can better evaluate and improve their own performance."
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.