This story was about a product that is sold as a means for improving libido. It included content about many of the criteria that are important in a story making health related claims. Although it didn’t give any details about the other options available to treat "sagging libido," it did provide a balanced report about the featured product.
One shortfall is that it failed to mention the potential harms associated with the use of product. This is an important consideration for consumers to factor in when thinking about using any medication or nutraceutical.
Overall, though, this was a well-written and researched story.
The story included the costs for a one-month supply of this product; it did not, however, mention how long an individual would need to consume this product before experiencing benefit.
The story was a little vague in the way it quantified the benefits of treatment, mentioning the proportion of people using the product that experienced "increased satisfaction" or "reporting at least some improvement". It then included comments from an independent source that explained the inadequacy of such measures. It would seem that the story reported the information available and then provided context for a reader to use when interpreting these results.
The story did not contain any mention of harms that might be associated with the use of this product. It did not point out that as a non-regulated product, there is not guarantee about the quality and the quantity of its contents. The story should have mentioned that those with kidney or liver disease might be especially sensitive to changes to electrolyte balance that may occur with this L-arginine. In addition, since L-arginine can affect bleeding, those on anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications should consult with a knowledgeable medical professional.
The story provides some of the evidence available on the effectiveness of this product; it also included comments from an independent expert that served to educate readers about the inadequacy of the studies that have been conducted.
This story did not engage in disease mongering; to its credit, it did not attempt to provide statistics for the proportion of the population estimated to benefit from this type of product.
The story included comments from a company spokesperson (whose conflict of interest was mentioned in the story) as well as an expert in the field who commented about his own published work which was also described in the story. These are not adequate as independent sources of information. However, the story did include comments from a source with expertise germane to the product featured in the story.
The story briefly mentioned other options for treatment of "sagging libido" – supplements, herbs and tonics. It then pointed out the different approach of the ArginMax supplement – "The company website provides links to actual scientific studies published in real medical journals, a rarity in the world of libido remedies." While we didn’t get much detail about the other options, at least they were recognized.
The story was explicit about the availability of these product; it mentioned that it is available over-the-counter and can be purchased on-line or at a brick-and-mortar chain that it named.
It’s clear from the story that this is not a new product.
Does not appear to rely on press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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