Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Even more fuel!==
==Medical misinformation==
[http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/2010/10/this-is-the-way-the-swedish-mammography-study-couldshould-have-been-analyzed.html This is the way the Swedish mammography study could/should have been analyzed]<br>
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ Lies, damned lies, and medical science]<br>
by Gary Schwitzer, HealthNewsReview Blog, 4 October 2010
by David H. Freedman, ''The Atlantic'', November 2010


Schwitzer's blog, (which we first mentioned in [http://www.causeweb.org/wiki/chance/index.php/Chance_News_59#Ill_health_news Chance News 59]) discusses news reports on public health issues, rating the stories according to a set [http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review-criteria.php rubric]. 
To be continued...


His present post concerns the Swedish mammogram study. He reviews the New York Times article described above, as well as reports from the
[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/29/news/la-heb-mammography-20100929 Los Angeles Times], the
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130053888 Associated Press] and
[http://news.health.com/2010/09/29/mammograms-save-lives-for-women-in-their-40s-study-says/ Health Day].  The last is singled out as the only one of the four that fails to make any mention of methodological concerns.  However, Schwitzer goes on to explain why of the articles does an adequate job explaining the methodological issues or their implications for the conclusions of the study.  Read the full post for an interesting extended discussion on this.
'''Question'''<br>
The discussion in the post notwithstanding, the individual HealthNewsReview ratings cited there give the [http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review.html?review_id=3203 NYT],
the [http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review.html?review_id=3204 LA Times]
and [http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review.html?review_id=3205 AP]
stories 4 stars, 5 stars, and 5 stars (out of 5) respectively.  What do you make of this?


Submitted by Bill Peterson
Submitted by Bill Peterson

Revision as of 21:21, 28 October 2010

Medical misinformation

Lies, damned lies, and medical science
by David H. Freedman, The Atlantic, November 2010

To be continued...


Submitted by Bill Peterson

Retrieved from "https://www.causeweb.org/wiki/chance/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=11361"