The common cold is just that, common, and there is currently no cure. Treatments focus on reducing symptoms, but do not change the course of the infection. Prevention efforts focus on hand hygiene to reduce transmission. Large doses of vitamin C, echinacea and, more recently, zinc, have become increasingly popular judged by the number and variety of products that are now available. However, there is little evidence to support their use. This story reports on a recent review of the available literature on the evidence that zinc improves the outcomes in individuals with colds. The story does an excellent job of laying out the problem, describing the new information available from the literature review, and putting it into context for the reader.
The story does a good job of describing how many studies showed no effect of the zinc products. In the one study showing a benefit of zinc nasal gel, the story provides quantification of benefits in natural frequencies (days of duration of the cold) rather than in terms of relative reduction.
The story does a great job of describing the design of the current study, which is a special kind of literature review and quotes an independent expert as well as the lead author on the current study and the representative of the manufacturer.
Overall, this was a very well-written story, free of hype and full of helpful information.
The story does not mention the costs of zinc products.
The story does a good job of describing how many studies showed no effect of the zinc products. In the one study showing a benefit of zinc nasal gel, the story provides quantification of benefits in natural frequencies (days of duration of the cold) rather than in terms of relative reduction.
The story discusses unpleasant taste, upset stomatch, stinging sensation and, potentially, loss of smell as harms or side effects of zinc products.
The story does a great job of describing the design of the current study, which is a special kind of literature review.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of colds. In fact the writer could have emphasized that colds are expensive, resulting in lost productivity and sick days due to illness in workers and their children.
The story quotes an independent expert as well as the lead author on the current study and the representative of the manufacturer.
The story mentions over-the-counter antihistamines, decongestants, and pain releivers as alternatives, appropriately pointing out that there is no "cure" for the common cold.
The story clearly states that zinc products are available over the counter in drugstores.
The story clearly states that zinc products are not a new idea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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.
You might also like