This story skimmed the surface of issues that should be raised about trial results for a new supposed sexual desire-boosting drug.
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.