NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Hormones given through the skin are worth a look

Rating

4 Star

Hormones given through the skin are worth a look

Our Review Summary

This story reports on the increasingly popular–but largely untested–so-called “bioidentical” or “compounded” hormones. This well-balanced piece balances opinion with fact, quoting leading researchers, clinicians in private practice, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and a Wyeth spokeswoman to demonstrate the range of opinions (and dearth of hard evidence) about these products.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No mention of costs of bioidentical,

transdermal, oral forms.

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

Not Satisfactory

Doesn’t actually mention outcomes for which hormone therapy is

being used, other than “keep feeling good” in the last paragraph. Given the lack of quality of life data for those taking

hormone therapy, this deserves attention.

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

Satisfactory

Story addresses competing views on harms.

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

Satisfactory

Story cites review by

American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists that found no evidence of INCREASED efficacy or safety (not clear whether

it found them to be AS effective or safe)

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

Story notes FDA-approved non-oral

forms; however, story doesn’t compare their effectiveness w/compounded forms.

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

Satisfactory

Story makes clear that compounded hormones are not FDA-approved.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

FDA-approved transdermal

forms long been available

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory

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.