This segment on the use of MRI to help assess heart disease risk could have been much improved with just a few additional statements.
- It needed an independent expert to put the new research into the context of existing methods of predicting heart risk.
- It didn’t discuss costs.
- It didn’t discuss clear potential harms that were mentioned in the journal article upon which the story was based.
- It didn’t quantify “silent heart attack” prevalence or potential benefits of the MRI approach in the most meaningful way.
- It didn't mention that the researchers in the study in question hold a patent to the machine used in the study.
The anchor twice provided openings that may have led to overinterpretation of the findings, but the correspondent resisted admirably both times. And to her credit, the reporter did try, at least, to inject some cautious interpretation.
Source : http://www.healthnewsreview.org
No comments:
Post a Comment