HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Can you comb away baldness?
February 15, 2007
The FDA has approved a new treatment for baldness, a device called the HairMax LaserComb.
Our Review Summary
This story reports on FDA approval of a new use for an existing product, a "laser comb" that sends red laser to the scalp to try to promote hair growth.
There is an underlying tone of disease-mongering whenever a national TV network uses some of its precious 22 minutes of airtime to promote an expensive new product to "treat" - or as the story says at one point, "cure" - baldness - a condition that is a normal part of aging for many men.
The story didn't quantify benefits. People thinking of paying $550 for such a device should be given some estimate of how well it works.
But the bigger failing of the story was that it missed an opportunity to point out how such devices are approved by the FDA. Such new devices must only pass a test of "substantial equivalence" to products already on the market. The FDA lists 10 such products. So not only did the story fail to tell how well the device works, it failed to put the new idea into the context of existing alternatives.
No sources were cited.
Anchor Brian Williams' comment - "..when you use the expression "potential cure for baldness" in this country, you're going to be a multimillionaire overnight..." - is more cheerleading than reporting. If this story had to be reported as one of the few stories of the day in a network newscast, it should have offered more evidence and context than boosterism.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story explains that the "laser comb" is already on the market and has now been approved for new labeling and use.
The story mentions that the device costs $550. But it does not compare this with the cost of alternative approaches to "treating" baldness and does not explain if insurers are likely to cover this expense.
There is an underlying tone of disease-mongering whenever a national TV network uses some of its precious 22 minutes of airtime to promote an expensive new product to "treat" - or as the story says at one point, "cure" - baldness - a condition that is a normal part of aging for many men.
There was no substantive discussion of the evidence. This is easily found on the FDA website: "A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at four sites in the United States. Subjects received either the LaserComb or a sham device. Subjects were instructed to use the device three times per week on nonconcurring days for a total of 26 weeks. Subjects in the LaserComb treatment group had significantly greater increases in mean terminal hair density than subjects in the placebo group. Subjects in the LaserComb group also had significantly better subjective assessments of overall hair regrowth than subjects in the placebo group." A good story would have perhaps pursued what is meant by "mean terminal hair density" and would have pointed out the limitations of subjective assessments.
The story said "it doesn't do any harm." The FDA reported that: "No subject experienced a serious adverse event and the adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatment groups."
The story called it a "new treatment for baldness." And it explained that it's already on the market for other uses.
The story didn't quantify benefits. People thinking of paying $550 for such a device should be given some estimate of how well it works.
But the bigger failing of the story was that it missed an opportunity to point out how such devices are approved by the FDA. Such new devices must only pass a test of "substantial equivalence" to products already on the market. The FDA lists 10 such products. So not only did the story fail to tell how well the device works, it failed to put the new idea into the context of existing alternatives.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No sources were cited.
No sources were cited.
There was no discussion of alternative approaches to coping with baldness.
Total Score: 3 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.