In the space of less than 600 words, this story meets most of the criteria for a well constructed and objective report. With some minor exceptions, the story provides readers with the results of a published research study in a balanced way and, importantly, places the new findings into context with previous research and available treatment options. Issues could be taken with several minor points (the severity and incidence of sexual dysfunction related to the antidepressants and the drop out rate) but overall this is a well written, brief yet concise and complete overview of a rather complicated published research.
There is no discussion of costs of treatment.
The story provided data on the percentage of women who reported improvement. Also – the story was very clear about the scope of the benefit.
The story provided data on the side effects of the treatment.
The story presented sufficient information about the size of the study and the study design. However, itt would have been desirable to note the study was based on an intention to treat analysis. About 20% of the subjects in each arm of the study did not complete the 8 weeks of treatments either due to lack of effectiveness or simply lost to follow up.
While the story doesn’t commit overt diseas-mongering, it does provide an unverified statistic (more than half) on the incidence of sexual dysfunction while on antidepressant treatment. What is unstated is that the incidence of sexual dysfunction related to depression is as high in some series. While the SSRI antidepressants are associated with sexual dysfunction the true incidence related solely to drug treatment is unclear. A clarifying statement related to the incidence of dysfunction related to the underlying disorder would have been helpful.
In addition to relevant information from a company spokesperson and the lead author of the study reported on, the story included quotes from two individuals with relevant expertise who had no ties to the study.
The story explained that sexual side effects were among the reasons why women may discontinue use of anti-depressant medication. The story mentioned a few other means for managing this medication side effect other than the medication that was the focus of the piece.
The story did not explicitly explain that Viagra is a prescription medication which is FDA approved for treating erectile dysfunction. However, this omission is reasonable giventhe vast marketing and publicity about Viagra. Further, regarding availability, the story had a quote from a company spokesperson that the company would not be pursing approval for the use of this medication as a treatment for sexual dysfunction in women
The story put the recent research finding in an accurate perspective by reporting results from previous studies had been ‘inconclusive’.
This story does not appear to be based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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