Since the vaccine is not available, a discussion of costs is not warranted. The piece does a nice job of presenting the results of the initial report in terms of absolute and relative risk reduction; however, absolute data is not provided for the secondary analyses. To its credit, the story clearly and effectively explained statistical significance as it relates to this research. As stated in previous coverage, the story reiterates that the benefits of the vaccine are modest and additional research is needed. Given that this is a follow-up report focused on newly released data, a discussion of the potential harms of the vaccine is not necessary. This story does an excellent job defining the different types of analyses used to evaluate the outcome data. The story also points out the results of the secondary analyses have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggesting the calculations have been checked for accuracy. This story does not engage in disease-mongering. This story does not provide commentary from any independent sources. In this case, a single comment from a biostatistical consultant would have provided helpful perspective. Given the nature of this follow-up story, a discussion on the existing alternatives to HIV prevention may not be warranted. This story makes it known that the vaccine is still in the testing phase and is not yet available. The story makes it clear that researchers have been working on an AIDS vaccine for decades. The story does not appear to be based on a press release.
AIDS Vaccine Is of Modest Help, Fuller Research Says