Menstrual cramps are a very common complaint. For most women there are simple treatments that are highly effective. Anti-inflammatory medications available without prescription (such as ibuprofen or naproxen) have been shown to lessen menstrual pain. Birth control pills can also reduce cramping in many women.
This story reports on a very experimental new drug (so experimental it doesn’t have a name yet) that is designed to block the hormone vasopressin, a hormone that causes contractions of the uterine muscles (which causes cramps and bleeding). However, this story provides very little in the way of balanced, useful information to a woman seeking information on treatments for menstrual cramps. It sensationalizes the "suffering" of women with this condition. It appears to simply repeat the spin of the drug company business development VP rather than doing any actual independent reporting.
Stories that report on new drugs should NOT rely solely on quotes from a drug company VP of business development – kind of a biased view!
Not applicable: costs not discussed, but that’s understandable for such an experimental new drug.
The story provided no data on how well the drug works, despite telling readers that data had been presented at a scientific meeting. What were the results?
The story mentions no potential harms or side effects. Although they may not be known, the story could have highlighted the fact that we don’t know if the drug is safe or not. As the old saying goes "Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence."
The story says that "The researchers presented data from a Phase 2 clinical trial Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco" – but it never tells us what those data showed!!!
Yet it lets a drug company VP get away with saying, "We certainly believe this drug has the potential to be a breakthrough."
The story exaggerates the extent of "suffering" in women with menstrual pain. While it is true that the condition is common and the side effects are bothersome, it is not a severe problem demanding treatment in all women.
The last line of story, "Until then, ladies, you’ll just have to suffer", regarding the fact that the new drug won’t be available for many years, sounds like drug company marketing, raising demand for an uNPRoven product.
The story only quotes a representative of the drug company. That’s no way to cover news about drugs in development.
The story completely misrepresents the efficacy of available options for menstrual pain. Birth control pills and NSAIDS are two effective means of treating menstrual cramps. The story misleads the reader by implying that this new drug is somehow more effective because it treats the "root cause" of the problem, rather than just the symptoms. However, dysmenorrhea is a benign condition that is unlikely to cause any problems other than bothersome symptoms. Treating the symptoms is the ultimate goal of treatment.
The story adequately explains that this drug is experimental and many years away from being approved and distributed.
The story adequately describes the drug as a novel approach to treating menstrual cramps.
If you want to hear how health/medical news is made, watch this news conference from the American Chemical Society http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5663619. We can’t be sure what the LA Times did to report on the story, but we do know that they only quoted the same drug company VP who appears in this video.
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 (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
reader
May 14, 2014 at 8:36 amYour statement: The story exaggerates the extent of “suffering” in women with menstrual pain. While it is true that the condition is common and the side effects are bothersome, it is not a severe problem demanding treatment in all women.”
What the LA Times blog post included (note: your link to the piece is not working):
“While half of all women experience some menstrual cramps, about 10 percent to 20 percent have a severe condition, called dysmenorrhea.”
What the NLM says:
“Many women have painful periods. Sometimes, the pain makes it difficult to perform normal household, job, or school-related activities for a few days during each menstrual cycle. Painful menstruation is the leading cause of lost time from school and work among women in their teens and 20s.”
[the lost-work time theme is echoed in the quote from the company executive]
Other:
From what I can tell, this was a blog post, rather than an article in the print edition. I could not find it in LexisNexis so am not certain.
I am not a huge fan of the click-bait articles on the LATimes site, nor a defender of this writer: it does seem, however, that it’s another example of forced categorization on your part leading to a misrepresentation of the gist of the article.
The line following the “breakthrough” quote from the company executive is “It’s still too soon to know if the drug will work, however.”
By parsing these articles as you do, material is taken out of context. The skepticism is embedded in the juxtaposition.
Yes, it’s tacky to just quote the company executive. Yes, the post is weak on the “underlying cause.” I’ll even give you that it’s hyping a potential product and helping to create a market.
But for the 10-20 of women with painful periods, who don’t want to be on birth control pills or NSAIDS (there are health risks to either), maybe an alternative would be a good thing.
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