HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
A desire booster for women?
November 23, 2009
This story only skimmed the surface of questions we think should have been raised for any claims made about trial results presented in this way for a drug promoted as a sexual desire booster.
Our Review Summary
This story skimmed the surface of issues that should be raised about trial results for a new supposed sexual desire-boosting drug.
Good points:
- It stated that it's not clear how the FDA would view the drug, given that an earlier drug with a similar success rate was rejected.
- It specified what the side effects were and - importantly - noted that 15% of women taking the drug in the study dropped out because of side effects.
Weaker points:
- Should we be getting our news from telephone conference calls with a principal investigator, rather than from peer-reviewed data or at least from multiple non-conflicted sources?
- How were the key endpoints of the study - sexual desire, etc. - defined and measured?
- Beyond the numbers, did the drug make a difference in women's lives?
- Why was a documentary filmmaker the only independent source quoted in the story?
- Where was the expert perspective that certainly exists in medicine that would define this as disease-mongering?
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story states that the drug is experimental and that it's not clear what the FDA would do if the drug is submitted for approval.
No cost estimate was given. But given that the drug hasn't yet been submitted for approval to the FDA, we can understand that.
Although the story included a quote with a documentary filmmaker who thought the drug was not a good idea, there was no specific discussion about whether "female sexual dysfunction" is a real condition or one created by drug companies to create a market for their products. It stated that "about one in 10 women are thought to suffer from sufficient lack of sexual desire for it to be distressing for them." (Note: the singular noun "one" deserves a singular verb "is") The story never attributed that "thought" to any source.
The story shared the data revealed in a conference call - without any comment on the limitations of drawing conclusions from data delivered that way - based on talks given at scientific meetings - results not yet published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There was also no discussion of how "satisfying sexual event," "sexual desire," or "distress related to sexual functioning" was defined or measured.
The story listed the most common side effects and, importantly, the 15% study dropout rate due to side effects.
The story alluded to the fact that "an earlier hormonal drug that produced a similar success rate was rejected." And it commented on the drug's novel mode of action.
The story did quantify the results of one outcome - at least with data provided on a conference call - but it did not explain how these results were defined or measured. And it did not seek comment on whether the "significantly higher scores" equates to any significant difference in any woman's life.
There's no evidence that the story relied on a news release.
The only non-conflicted source interviewed was a documentary filmmaker. That doesn't contribute the kind of independent expert perspective that a story like this requires.
In an indirect way, the story addressed other approaches to any low libido that may exist - dealing with relationship problems and stress, for example. The story barely meets the criterion on this matter.
Total Score: 5 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.