If you ever wondered about the evidence for those hot and/or smelly creams for arthritis pain, this column drove home a "healthy skeptic" perspective, emphasizing, for the most part, that "there’s no good evidence that any over-the-counter rub or cream offers real relief for arthritis," according to one source.
We say "for the most part" because it ended oddly, allowing some broad, vague, unsubstantiated and unquantified claims — "seem to help some people…can give you temporary relief."
We also wish the column had given a glimpse of the regulatory oversight that allows claims like "deep penetrating pain relief" or "proven clinical effectiveness in treating arthritis pain" when the column itself kept repeating:
The story listed the cost per unit for all three creams.
The story didn’t provide the numbers from a cited 1994 study on capsaicin benefits. Overall, the message of "no good evidence" was clear. But, confusingly, the story gave the last word to a rheumatologist who said some of these creams "do seem to help some people…it can give you temporary relief." If you’re going to do that, we think you need to provide numbers. How many people? How long is temporary? To end the story in this way – without numbers to back up this flip-flop of a message – was disappointing.
The story was clear about lack of effectiveness overall – and that with the capsaicin cream, "the burning sensation is often intolerable."
The story went right to the point: "there’s no good evidence that any over-the-counter rub or cream offers real relief for arthritis, Altman says. Very few high-quality studies have ever investigated the products, he says, and the results that do exist have been far from convincing."
There was no disease-mongering of the pain of arthritis.
Two expert sources in rheumatology were interviewed.
The story danced around the topic of a placebo effect without ever directly addressing it. And it didn’t make any direct comparison with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or with heating pads or other options.
The over-the-counter availability of the creams is clear in the story.
The story offered this context: "Over the centuries, people have been willing to rub all sorts of things into their sore joints. Today, arthritis sufferers can choose from a wide range of over-the-counter creams with different approaches to relief." By the end of the story it was clear that today’s creams may not offer much advancement over what’s been done with rubs through the centuries.
It’s safe to assume that the story did not rely on a news 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