ScienceNews: What consumer DNA data can and can’t tell you about your risk for certain diseases
Rating: 5.0 Stars
- This is a well-balanced article that explores the issues of DTC genetic testing from multiple angles. The headline and lede are accurate.
- This article cites multiple sources and conveys several viewpoints.
- There is an accurate portrayal of the state of the science. There is a critical evaluation of the field included.
- It is clear and easy to read.
- The reporting is factually correct and uses scientific terminology correctly for the most part. The article's author uses euphemisms in a few places such as "genetic spelling variations" instead of mutations which could be misleading.
Forbes: Healthcare providers can't afford to ignore direct-to-consumer genetic testing
Rating: 4.5 Stars
- The headline and lede match the content of the article but the lede is a bit hyperbolic stating "The DTC revolution is here".
- This article is a personal opinion and commentary and has a declared point of view.
- The DTC issue is evaluated critically. There is not a critical evaluation of this study per se.
- The article is clear and easy to read. The salient points are made well.
- The science that is reported is factually correct. The 40% error rate is discussed. The misinterpretation of data by DTC or third-party companies is not discussed.
Gizmodo: Another reminder that consumer DNA tests are not 100% accurate
Rating: 4.0 Stars
- This article is clearly written and easy to read. Multiple sources are cited.
- The headline and lede match the content of the article and study reviewed.
- Alternative interpretations are not presented but the article presents a good explanation of how consumers are using this information.
- The information is factually correct in most places. One mistake is stating that 26 mutations were evaluated. There were 26 mutations that were confirmed, more were evaluated. Authors use "letters" instead of DNA or bases of DNA which is a metaphor.
Geek.com: Consumer DNA tests are wrong 40 percent of the time
Rating: 3.0 Stars
- This article is easily read and portrays a portion of the study reasonably well.
- The headline and lede matches a major point in the article but omits a portion (on misinterpretation of variants) in the study.
- The article is not particularly balanced; only the study author is cited as a source and other interpretations of the study are not considered.
- The analogy used for DNA and genes is useful but not entirely accurate (as with any analogy). Contrary to the article, not all DTC testing is done by SNP testing.
Newsweek: Nearly half of at-home DNA test results could be wrong
Rating: 2.0 Stars
- This article is easy to read but is not clear due to its brevity.
- The article does not present any context for this study. Only one of two major results are conveyed.
- The headline is exaggerated (nearly half implies close to 50%, whereas the result is 40%) while the lede is more accurate.
- Only one outside source is quoted.
- The article is factually correct and uses correct scientific terminology.
- There is not a critical evaluation of the research.