Suzanne Somers advocates ‘natural’ approach when treating menopause

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article provides no cost estimate for  bioidentical hormone replacement therapy; it does, however provide us with the price of Suzanne Somers book, "Ageless."

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The possible benefits of the treatment are not quantified.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

One clinician quote mentioned that these products are without FDA approval and he went on to say that they are ‘potentially quite dangerous’.  However – this quote did not differentiate between the possibility that products failed to obtain FDA approval or whether they are exempt from seeking FDA approval (the latter is often the case).  It would have been helpful to inform readers what sort of danger potential was being alluded and to provide some way to guage the actual type and size of the risk posed.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

There is actress testimony about the benefits to be obtained through the use of bioidentical hormones. 

One clinician is quoted as stating that these products ‘deliver renewed energy and reduced menopausal symptoms’.  However – we are not given any sort of metric for gauging these benefits (is the effect seen in all women, some women, or a few women; how large is the effect observed – how was it measured, how long was treatment needed for the effect(s) to be realized).  Furthermore – we are not given any sort of assurance that there is actual data supporting these claims. 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

Discussing menopause in terms of a battle "fighting off nasty symptoms" and describing life after menopause as "constant and progressive deterioration" are examples of disease-mongering language. 

The line "…without hormones there is no quality of life" is another.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The major source of information for this article is an interview with the actress Suzanne Somers. Two physicians’ opinions are mentioned – in 84 words – but the actress’ opinions warranted 472 words. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story opened with a statement about ‘the spigot to the hormone fountain of youth’ being ‘practically turned off’.  This may have lead readers to conclude that hormone replacement therapy is unavailable or at best difficult to obtain; this is not an accurate representation.

The ails listed for menopause included symptoms that are not necessarily linked with menopause; further – there are treatments available for problems such as depression or weakening bones.  The story made no mention of treatments other than those hyped in the book.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The headline and introduction to the story suggested that the focus would be bioidentical hormones.  But they actually received little space in this article. 

The story should have mentioned the controvery and confusion about the terminology "bioidenticals"; some are FDA-approved, but those most generally refer to the unregulated, individually compounded mixtures which are not FDA approved.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The treatment of symptoms of menopause with bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is not new but the story never clearly established that.  Even the claims made by the actress profiled in the story are not new; she published a 2004 book, "The Sexy Years: discover the hormone connection."