HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
New pill might be reliable wake-up call
April 10, 2008
When I recently heard about a magical new "Wake Up on Time" pill, I thought "yeah, right" - before thinking, "I have to try that!"
Our Review Summary
This is not a good piece of health journalism. It is not balanced. It fails to discuss any evidence. The report demonstrates little curiosity and no rigor.
With the exception of the brief (and rather understated) quote from a sleep specialist, the story reads like it should say "advertising" at the top of the page.
The Daily News editors should be embarrassed for allowing this story into print.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story predicts the product will be available at "all major retail outlets" by August. There is no evidence to support this prediction.
The story states a price of $29.95 for 40 pills, but fails to indicate what the recommended dosage is. The author took two in the evening but the other user quoted took additional pills during the day. What are the true costs per person per week of this "magical new pill"?
The story exaggerates the author's waking difficulties in a way that makes this "condition" seem more widespread and harmful than it is.
The evidence of benefit consists of the author's experience, one other user's experience, and the maker's claims. Have there been clinical trials? What have they shown? What is the quality of the evidence?
The article fails to mention any potential harms.
The article claims the coating used to delay release of the ingredients inside is unique. Time-release coatings have been used in pills for decades.
The reporter makes no attempt to quantify the benefits. What is the evidence? How many are helped? How many are not helped?
The story echoes both the press release and the maker's web site in its description of the episode that led the pill's creator to develop the product, the contents of the pill, and the claims about the pill's "unique" coating. However, because our criterion demands that we find the exact same language in the story as we found in a news release, we can't be sure that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Maybe this an example of where our criteria are too lax.
Sources used are the product's maker, the reporter's observations and quotes from a satisfied user. One physician is quoted briefly at the end questioning the ingredients' capacity to improve sleep. There is improper balance in the story with the weight of terms like "magical...ingenious...unique...even more dramatic results" overwhelming the short comment from one physician.
There are many options for treating sleep difficulties or morning fatigue. None is mentioned here.
Total Score: 0 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.