NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Onion Cream Treats New Stretch Marks

Rating

3 Star

Onion Cream Treats New Stretch Marks

Our Review Summary

Beauty products companies have long used dermatologists to give a sheen of scientific credibility to their cosmetics products–a tradition whose troubling implications have been amply explored by major media outlets in the past. (See here and here for examples). Given this checkered history, we think journalists bear a special responsibility to closely examine scientific claims related to cosmetics products. Unfortunately, this story from WebMD mostly gave a pass to a weak study about a new moisturizing cream that purports to treat stretch marks. There was little exploration of the quality of the evidence, no quantification of benefits, and no discussion of the myriad other creams on the market that offer similar flimsy proof of effectiveness.      

 

Why This Matters

Quality health journalism can help consumers determine whether this "proof" of reducing stretch marks holds up to careful scrutiny.   Or, quality health care journalism could spend its time exploring other, more important topics.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story notes that a 5.29-ounce tube of the product retails for $39.99 at drugstores.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Women reported that the treated stretch mark "looked better, was less red, and was softer and smoother," according to the story, but no statistics are provided. There is no way for the reader to judge the frequency or magnitude of the benefits reported.  

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story reports that women experienced no side effects from the cream.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The design of this study was such that the onion cream treatment was almost guaranteed to come out ahead, but the story offers no cautionary notes regarding the generally poor quality of the evidence. It is a well-established fact that patients often will perceive benefits from a treatment regardless of whether the therapy is objectively effective (the placebo effect). So one has to question why this study didn’t use blinded observers to grade the effects of the cream instead of relying on the unblinded participant reports. Moreover, instead of comparing the onion cream to no treatment, why not compare it with one of the many other moisturizing creams that claim to reduce stretch marks? This would have provided a more useful test of the onion extract’s "anti-inflammatory" properties. The story just didn’t pose any questions about the evidence.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The entire concept behind this story is a subtle form of disease-mongering. Stretch marks are a ubiquitous part of the human experience, and the notion that we need to "treat" them is a medicalization of a normal state.

The story does earn credit for pointing out that stretch marks "are not harmful to your health," but it wanders into unsatisfactory territory when it characterizes stretch marks as "a problem that currently has no cure." Stretch marks are not a disease, but this description makes them sound like one.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story quotes one independent source and identifies Dr. Draelos, the lead researcher on the study, as a consultant to Merz Pharmaceuticals, which funded the research.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

This story fails to mention the existence of the many other moisturizing creams that purport to treat stretch marks. It also did not mention that plastic surgery is sometimes used to treat stretch marks.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story states that the product is available in drug stores.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

There are many creams that combine moisturizers and plant extracts and claim to treat skin problems. This story should have challenged the notion that adding onion extract to a skin cream makes it in any way "new."    

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It doesn’t appear that the story relied solely on a news release.

Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory

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.