Sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
by Gary Schwitzer, HealthNewsReview Blog, 4 October 2010 | by Gary Schwitzer, HealthNewsReview Blog, 4 October 2010 | ||
Schwitzer's blog, which was mentioned | Schwitzer's blog, which was 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]. | ||
His present post concerns the Swedish mammogram study. He reviews the New York Times article described above, as well as reports from the | His present post concerns the Swedish mammogram study. He reviews the New York Times article described above, as well as reports from the | ||
Revision as of 00:31, 18 October 2010
Even more fuel!
This is the way the Swedish mammography study could/should have been analyzed
by Gary Schwitzer, HealthNewsReview Blog, 4 October 2010
Schwitzer's blog, which was mentioned in Chance News 59, discusses news reports on public health issues, rating the stories according to a set rubric.
His present post concerns the Swedish mammogram study. He reviews the New York Times article described above, as well as reports from the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and Health Day. The last is singled out as the only one of the four that fails to make any mention of methodological concerns. However, the Schwitzer none of the articles does a complete 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 The discussion in the post notwithstanding, the individual HealthNewsReview ratings cited there give the NYT, the LA Times and AP stories 4 stars, 5 stars, and 5 stars (out of 5) respectively. What do you make of this?
Submitted by Bill Peterson