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.
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.
The story notes that a 5.29-ounce tube of the product retails for $39.99 at drugstores.
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.
The story reports that women experienced no side effects from the cream.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The story states that the product is available in drug stores.
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."
It doesn’t appear that the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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.