This article about a treatment for low female sexual satisfaction does a first-rate job of putting generally positive study results in context. The reporter draws on deeper knowledge about the product and the study to avoid creating a misleading impression. No reader will come away thinking the patch has been proven safe or is likely to be approved any time soon.
Specifically, the article employs the following best practices when reporting results of a New England Journal of Medicine study on the testosterone patch:
Its main shortcoming is a failure to consult any sources other than company representatives. While this is a significant problem, the story ultimately delivers a clear and accurate message: a patch to treat low female sexual satisfaction isn’t likely to be on the market any time soon.
For this reason, the story should have included information about other approaches to dealing with low sexual satisfaction in women.
The story does not cite the cost of the patch sold in Europe, which could be a marker for possible pricing in the U.S.
In a story that discusses the competitive commercial environment of the treatment’s development, this is a serious shortcoming.
The report adequately describes the methodology and outcomes of the study in question. It does a good job raising the question of potential harms, while indicating that data supporting those harms aren’t statistically significant.
The story reports the potential health risks linked to the patch, primarily breast cancer.
The story does a nice job presenting the actual number of events (breast cancer), 3/264 in patch group and none in the placebo group, and goes on to mention that, although not statistically significant, it does support concerns about breast cancer risk.
The news report is based on a blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial whose results are published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The report also clearly mentions that this is a "company-run study."
The story does an excellent job of questioning whether the "disorder" the patch is designed to treat should be considered a medical condition.
The only sources contacted for this story are representatives of two companies involved with development of female sexual satisfaction products, including the one studied in the journal report.
The viewpoints of independent clincians and researchers would have been valuable.
The story does not mention other approaches to dealing with female sexual satisfaction, which include treatment of underlying psychological and physical conditions, and individual or couples therapy.
The story makes plain that the female testosterone patch is not available in the United States but is on the market in Europe.
The report makes clear that the patch is not novel–it’s sold in Europe and has been under study and development in the U.S. for at least a decade.
We can’t be sure if the story relied largely on a news release. We do know that the only sources quoted are drug company representatives.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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