News magazine US News and World Report began an article aboutthrombolytic treatment of acute stroke with the following anecdote: One Wednesday morning in January, 36-year-old Laurie Lucas was rushingabout, dressing her daughters for school and talking on the phone, when astrange confusion swept over her. She felt woozy. Her right arm flailed aboutand her right leg went weak. Paramedics arriving at Lucas's Sanford, Florida,home thought she was having epileptic seizures, but brain scans revealed ablockage of an artery that supplies the brain with blood. Lucas, a physicallyfit former professional cheerleader, had suffered a massive stroke... If Lucashad been stricken a year ago, before a new treatment was developed, she almostcertainly would havedied.1(p62) This story is interesting but misleading. It is not plausible thatphysicians could accurately conclude that Laurie Lucas “almost certainlywould have died” without treatment. Nor is it true that“massive” strokes are likely to benefit from thrombolytictreatment.2 Inaddition to several anecdotes, the US News and World Report articleincludes “expert” testimony in which prominent physiciansexaggerate the efficacy and effectiveness of the new treatment. Such exaggerations also appear in medical journals and other professionalvenues. Specialists have announced “the decade of thebrain,”3 a“new era of proactive rather than reactive stroketherapy,”4 and“transformation from a realm of fatalism to a field of therapeuticopportunities.”5Landis and associates write, “With the tools in hand, recognition ofischemic stroke as a medical emergency and application of prudent thrombolytictechniques will have a major impact on stroke morbidity andmorality.”6(p226)Some commentators even warn of lawsuits if thrombolytic agents are not givento eligible strokepatients.7 Theseclaims are without scientificbasis.8,9,10Yet, robust exaggerations and effusive sentiments of this sort appear notmerely in the literature concerning acute stroke but on other topics as well.They are a serious problem because they exhibit interpretation bias, which maylead to errors in clinical judgment and to unrealistic patientexpectations.11