HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Special candy fights cavities
March 14, 2008
A researcher at UCLA’s dental school says the lollipop could revolutionize the way we clean our teeth.
Our Review Summary
This was a 3-minute ad - not a piece of journalism. So much good can be done with 3 minutes of network TV time.
But this story failed to:
- discuss costs
- discuss evidence - of harms or benefits
- present any independent expert's opinion
It even featured the two co-anchors sucking lollipops at the very end. Wow.
Dr. Shi and colleagues have done some interesting work in the area of preventive dentistry targeting the underlying pathophysiology (bacterial colonization and acid production). The work in the area of preventive dentistry - and not a focus on this lollipop product - would have been a more valuable use of the 3 minutes.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
There was lots of talk about "calls coming in" - from "around the globe," even from pet food makers. But there was no explicit mention on the air of availability. The story gleefuly proclaimed that the product "doesn't need FDA approval" - as if that's always a good thing. Meantime, the ABC website linked to the proprietary "Dr. John's Lollipops" website, where some extravagant claims were made.
The story didn't mention costs. But the ABC website linked to the proprietary "Dr. John's Lollipops" website where costs were listed:
• 20-Lollipop Pack (one dose) $10.00
• 2.5 lb. Bulk Bag (Approx. 125 Pieces) $50.00
As a comparison, a tube of toothpaste with fluoride costs about $2. Fluoride toothpaste has been shown to reduce dental caries in children.
The story didn't exaggerate tooth decay but it also didn't give very much or good context. It said $85 m was spent on oral health last year and that 79 percent of kids still have a cavity by age 17. (No source given for either statement.)
The story was completely devoid of any evidence about how well these lollipops work - if at all. Yet it said the approach could "revolutionize" oral health and that it "could be a cure for cavities." All we got was anecdotal evidence in a petri dish.
The story said the product "doesn't need FDA approval because it's all-natural and its active ingredient is licorice, which the FDA says is completely safe." That's a tremendous leap of faith with no evidence to back it up. Further, contrary to the story, licorice (its main ingredient is glycyrrhizic acid) is in fact pharmacologically active. In addition to its ability to alter the effects of drugs (digoxin is one example), licorice can induce a hypermineralocorticoid-like effect in humans.
The story did all it could to establish the novelty of the product - saying it would revolutionize oral health care and might be a cure for cavities. Yet, without evidence, we can't be sure if there's anything novel here beyond a new lollipop.
The story failed to discuss any EVIDENCE for benefit.
We can't be sure if the story relied soley or largely on a news release. We do know that only the one researcher/inventor was interviewed.
Only the one researcher/inventor was interviewed. No dentist was interviewed. The anchor even asked the reporter at the end if the American Dental Associaiton had "weighed in on all this." The answer was no. But it's not clear if that meant that ABC even asked the ADA.
Obviously there are many options for prevention and treatment of tooth decay. None was mentioned in the story.
Total Score: 1 of 9 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.