HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Do diet patch claims stick?
November 16, 2009
Another well-done "Healthy Skeptic" column - this one about on-the-skin diet patches, their claims, and the lack of published evidence to back up those claims.
Our Review Summary
If every news organization in the country had a regular "Healthy Skeptic" column like the Los Angeles Times does, we'd undoubtedly have a lot smarter health care consumer population.
They've done it again with this story on slap-'em-on diet patches, and one expert's quote that the product claims are "beyond ridiculous."
Click on Criteria for definitions.
We're told how the products are available online or at health food stores.
Costs of each product are described.
The column focuses on the products - not on the problem of overweight - so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
The story succinctly quotes one expert saying "There's no evidence" on one product claim. And another expert says "No diet patch has passed muster n a published, peer-reviewed study."
We'll give the column a barely passing grade on this because it nailed lack of evidence of efficacy - which can be viewed as a harm. And it stated that "every known appetite suppressant has significant side effects" - although it didn't give details.
The fact that there are several competing patches gave an appropriate context.
The story explained the lack of evidence of benefit. It cited evidence claimed for one product on one website but quoted an expert saying the results were suspiciious and not at all convincing.
No evidence the story relied on a news release.
Multiple sources were interviewed.
The story could have at least briefly mentioned other weight loss methods that had evidence to back them up.
Total Score: 8 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.