This story skimmed the surface of issues that should be raised about trial results for a new supposed sexual desire-boosting drug.
Good points:
Weaker points:
No cost estimate was given. But given that the drug hasn’t yet been submitted for approval to the FDA, we can understand that.
The story did quantify the results of one outcome – at least with data provided on a conference call – but it did not explain how these results were defined or measured. And it did not seek comment on whether the "significantly higher scores" equates to any significant difference in any woman’s life.
The story listed the most common side effects and, importantly, the 15% study dropout rate due to side effects.
The story shared the data revealed in a conference call – without any comment on the limitations of drawing conclusions from data delivered that way – based on talks given at scientific meetings – results not yet published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There was also no discussion of how "satisfying sexual event," "sexual desire," or "distress related to sexual functioning" was defined or measured.
Although the story included a quote with a documentary filmmaker who thought the drug was not a good idea, there was no specific discussion about whether "female sexual dysfunction" is a real condition or one created by drug companies to create a market for their products. It stated that "about one in 10 women are thought to suffer from sufficient lack of sexual desire for it to be distressing for them." (Note: the singular noun "one" deserves a singular verb "is") The story never attributed that "thought" to any source.
The only non-conflicted source interviewed was a documentary filmmaker. That doesn’t contribute the kind of independent expert perspective that a story like this requires.
In an indirect way, the story addressed other approaches to any low libido that may exist – dealing with relationship problems and stress, for example. The story barely meets the criterion on this matter.
The story states that the drug is experimental and that it’s not clear what the FDA would do if the drug is submitted for approval.
The story alluded to the fact that "an earlier hormonal drug that produced a similar success rate was rejected." And it commented on the drug’s novel mode of action.
There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
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