Read the article "Cheap combo pill cuts heart and stroke risks", (https://medicalxpress.comews/2019-08-cheap-combo-pill-heart.html) which appeared in The Seattle Times on August 23, 2019. Use the "Guidelines for Evaluation of a Study and a News Report" to evaluate this news article. Briefly comment on the study quality, interpretation, and the reporting done by the news article. You are not expected to read the original research article. Your answers can be listed as bullet points but should include a brief rationale for your answer.

1. Context: Have there been other studies on this topic?

2. Independent Comment: Are there comments from independent scientists who are not part of the study?

3. Source: Who conducted the study and who paid for it?

4. Headline: Does the headline accurately reflect the story and the strength of the evidence in the story?

Reporting What is the quality ofthe reporting? Context Have there been other studies on this topic? If so, how do the results of those studies compare with this one? A single study is seldom sufcient for drawing firm conclusions. A metaanalysis may be used to combine evidence from multiple studies. Independent comment Are there comments from independent scientists who are not part of the study? These can help put the study in context. Independent comments also usually indicate that the writer of the story has made some effort to independently evaluate the research and is not merely reprinting a press release. Source Who conducted the study and who paid for it? Do the researchers or the sponsor have a vested interest in the outcome of the study? For example, a study on the health effects of smoking that has been conducted by researchers at a major university and sponsored by the NIH may be more believable than a study conducted by a small contract research organization and paid for by the American Tobacco Institute due to a clear conflict of interest. Headline justified? Does the headline accurately reect the story and the strength of evidence in the story? For instance, the International Agency for Research on Cancer issued a press release on May 31, 2011 in which they described an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. The press release noted the \"limited\" evidence for the link and did not formally quantify the magnitude of the increased risk. Overall, the press release classied the strength of evidence as \"23,\" meaning, \"The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.\" However, the Daily Express (a London based newspaper) carried the press release with the headline, \"SHOCK WARNING: MOBILE PHONES CAN GIVE YOU CANCER,\" which clearly goes far beyond the measured tone of the press release