For centuries honey has been used to treat wounds. This ancient healing method has seen more recent interest as there have been increasing reports from New Zealand and Australia of its effectiveness. Even the FDA has recently approved a honey-based wound system for treating burns and wounds. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting its use is limited by the lack of good quality studies.
This story does a great job of describing the recent surge in use and interest in honey-based wound care. It accurately represents the availability, novelty and costs of honey-based products. It adequately lays out the treatment options and adequately qualifies the sweeping claims of the effectiveness of honey products with caveats about the lack of good evidence. Furthermore, the story quotes multiple sources, which reassures the reader that it does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
The story does not mention any potential harms of honey. Reports indicate that topical use of honey can cause a burning or stinging sensation and there is some concern about infection. Finally, the story does not adequately quantify the benefits of honey. Although the story talks about ‘success rates’ for the honey compared to ‘conventional interventions’, it is not clear how this was defined, how it was measured, etc.
Overall, though, this was a well-written, balanced piece.
The story does mention the cost of one jar of manuka that can be bought over the internet.
Although the story talks about ‘success rates’ for the honey compared to ‘conventional interventions’, it is not clear how this was defined, how it was measured, etc.
The story does not mention any harms of using honey. Reports indicate that topical use of honey can cause a burning or stinging sensation and there is some concern about infection.
The story does mention two trials using the honey, but appropriately points out that there is insufficient evidence to support the many "sweeping claims" that are made about the honey’s effectiveness. The story should have also mentioned that there is evidence in the literature that honey derived from sources other than manuka may work equally as well. As written, the story gives the reader the impression that manuka is in some way superior.
The story does not appear to exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of wounds, though it is not always clear what is the "disease" in question.
Although the story quotes multiple researchers, they were all involved in honey research in one way or another. The story should have quoted other, independent researchers/experts (perhaps with infectious disease expertise) who were not related to the research.
The story does mention other types of wound dressings and antibiotics as alternatives.
The story explains that manuka dressings were recently approved by the FDA and that the honey can be purchased over the internet.
The story clearly indicates that the idea of using honey for wound healing is not a new one but that manuka honey is new to the market.
Because the story quotes multiple researchers, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.