In 1999, the FDA first approved the prescription-only Plan B (two high dose pills of Levonorgestrel, a hormone commonly found in many birth control pills). In 2006, Plan B was made available without a prescription to women over the age of 18, however this ruling remains controversial and it is currently only available over-the-counter in 9 states (http://www.pharmacyaccess.org).
EllaOne, a new drug currently only available in Europe, may be more effective at preventinging pregnancy than Levonorgestrel even when taken several days after uNPRotected sex or contraceptive failure. In a study published in the current issue of Lancet, women who took ellaOne within five days had a lower chance of pregnancy than those who took Levonorgestrel. In the study 1.8% got pregnant after taking ellaOne compared to 2.6% with Levonorgestrel.
This story quotes two independent health experts who provide very valuable and balanced perspectives on the new study.
The story could have been improved by describing the costs of the new drug compared to Levonorgestrel. Although the story mentions that ellaOne could cost up to three times as much as Levonorgestrel, this is not adequate information on costs. Most importantly, however, the story does the reader a disservice by not describing the harms and side effects of either option. In the study 19% experienced headaches and other common side effects include abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, and cramps.
In short, taking these pills is not a pleasant experience but nonetheless is far safer than abortion.
The story does not mention costs of either drug, other than to describe the costs of ellaOne as "three times the price of Plan B."
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of ellaOne by presenting both the number of pregnancies and the pregnancy rate in both groups.
The story doesn’t mention any potential harms of the drug, other than unwanted pregnancy. In the study 19% of women experienced headaches and one dizziness. Common side effects of the drug also include stomach pain and nausea, cramps, and vaginal bleeding. None of these were mentioned in the story.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study.
The story does not engage in disease-mongering.
The story quotes two independent health officials who provide very valuable perspectives on the new findings.
The story compares the new drug to the existing option, Levonorgestrel.
The story clearly states that ellaOne is only available by prescription in Europe, whereas Levonorgestrel is available in many countries worldwide, including the US.
The story accurately represents the novelty of ellaOne compared to Levonorgestrel.
Because the story quotes independent researchers and health officials, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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