There was a lot we liked about this story. Appropriate caveats. Even the headline said "may help" instead of hyping results. Lots of detail on the evidence. Maybe WebMD is starting to listen to us?
The story ended with this note which we had not seen before on a WebMD story:
We applaud this addition.
The story explains that "No price has been set." We give it credit for thinking about cost and addressing it – even if the answer is uncertain at this point. 70 percent of the stories we review fail to adequately address costs.
The "ejaculatory control scale" wasn’t explained very well. But the numbers were there.
Again, this was the most complete story of the three reviewed in discussing side effects:
"A total of 6.1% of the men and 6.7% of their partners suffered at least one side effect. In men, the most frequent side effect was loss of erection; it occurred at least once in 3.1% of men. In the partners, the most frequent side effect was burning in the vulvovaginal area; 5% of women reported it at least once."
The story gave a great deal of detail about how the study was done – most of the three stories we reviewed.
It also included this italicized note at the end:
We had not seen that before on a WebMD story and we applaud it. WebMD, are you listening to us?
The story includes the important caveat – "Not all men with premature ejaculation suffer to the same degree as the men in the study" – although did they really need to use the term "suffer"???
It did not question the oft-cited statistic that "Up to 30% of men suffer some degree of premature ejaculation" as the Wall Street Journal did, but we’ll give it a satisfactory grade on this nonetheless because of the caveat above.
One researcher’s financial links to the drug company were disclosed. One independent expert was interviewed.
The story didn’t provide the context on other research in this area that the Wall Street Journal story provided:
The story explains that "The drug is so new that the company has yet to give it a name under which it will be marketed…. the company is preparing to apply for FDA approval based on the results of the new research."
It’s clear from the story that the drug "contains two common painkillers" and that "this is the first time a drug is being rigorously tested for men with really serious premature ejaculation problems."
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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