text_1: Mammograms Save Lives for Women in Their 40s, Study Says
text_2: "The story focuses on results of a Swedish large study that showed a survival benefit from annual breast cancer screening for women in their 40s. This story also briefly reviews a recent study reported at the same conference, however, dealing with survival from breast cancer. Simply put, these are two separate issues (screening and survival) and it is very confusing to put the results and comments together in the same piece. Perhaps largely because the story doesn’t adequately evaluate the quality of the evidence of the new Swedish study, it has an unbalanced feel of promoting annual mammograms based on this recenty published data and via the selection of experts cited. The downsides of screening for women 40-49 are not discussed at all. While this story begins telling readers that ""Another study…finds that screening can lower the risk of dying…"" –  look at how other competing stories began:   4th paragraph of AP story: ""The new study has major limitations and cannot account for possibly big differences in the groups of women it compares."" 1st paragraph of LA Times blog story:  ""Critics charged that the study was poorly designed and potentially vastly misleading."" 2nd sentence of NY Times story:  ""Results were greeted with skepticism by some experts who say they may have overestimated the benefit."" No such skepticism, no such independent critical evaluation took place in the HealthDay story. Women – especially in their 40s – must be terribly confused by the swirling studies. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations last November, the American Cancer Society and others’ backlash against it, the Norwegian study in the New England Journal of Medicine, and now the new Swedish study. This is when journalism must rise to the challenge with an extraordinary effort to help evaluate evidence, ask tough questions, and offer insightful analysis. That just didn’t happen with this story. It was more like stenography from a teleconference. Disappointing."