text_1: Millions face risk from drug-coated stents
text_2: "Drug-eluting or drug-coated stents were first introduced in the U.S. in the mid-90s. Ten years later, they have all but replaced traditional stents because of their ability to prevent the clogged artery from closing again. However, new information suggests that these stents may in fact be causing some clots to form. This story reports on this development and does a decent job of explaining the problem, but falls short in explaining the strength of the available evidence and overstating the potential benefits from stenting. Although the story does describe the clot risk as 2 or 3 percent, the story should have provided more information here, such as, what is the time frame? How often are they fatal? How does this number compare to alternative options? Furthermore, the story inappropriately suggests that the benefits of stenting include a reduction in heart attacks. By accurately describing the prevalence of stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story verges on treatment mongering by describing stents as a ""life-saving device"" and suggesting that they can preventing heart attacks. The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence on the harms from stenting. Furthermore, the story does not mention medications as an alternative treatment option, nor does the story describe the costs of stenting for an indiviual or relative to the alternatives. NBC did something good at the conclusion of the story, letters viewers know that there was more information on their partner MSNBC website. When television newscasts don't afford much time to such complex stories, it is wise for them to use their websites in this way."