New Drug Spray May Help Premature Ejaculation
Reviewed By
Rating
New Drug Spray May Help Premature Ejaculation
Our Review Summary
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?
Why This Matters
The story ended with this note which we had not seen before on a WebMD story:
- This study was presented at a medical conference. The findings should be considered preliminary as they have not yet undergone the "peer review" process, in which outside experts scrutinize the data prior to publication in a medical journal.
We applaud this addition.
Criteria
Satisfactory
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.
Satisfactory
The "ejaculatory control scale" wasn’t explained very well. But the numbers were there.
Satisfactory
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."
Satisfactory
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:
- This study was presented at a medical conference. The findings should be considered preliminary as they have not yet undergone the "peer review" process, in which outside experts scrutinize the data prior to publication in a medical journal.
We had not seen that before on a WebMD story and we applaud it. WebMD, are you listening to us?
Satisfactory
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.
Satisfactory
One researcher’s financial links to the drug company were disclosed. One independent expert was interviewed.
Not Satisfactory
The story didn’t provide the context on other research in this area that the Wall Street Journal story provided:
- "The field suffered a setback in 2005, when the FDA rejected an application from Johnson & Johnson to market a drug called Priligy; the agency doesn’t typically reveal its reasons for such decisions publicly. To date no treatment has won the FDA’s nod for use in premature ejaculation. The J&J drug, which works similarly to antidepressants such as Prozac, has been approved for use in 12 countries, including Germany and South Korea. A company spokeswoman says Johnson & Johnson is "evaluating its path forward in the U.S." for Priligy. In the U.S., men can try certain antidepressants or numbing creams, which aren’t FDA-approved for premature ejaculation, or work with a sex therapist or psychologist. These are "less-than-perfect alternatives," says Anthony Smith, a urologist at the University of New Mexico who was not involved in the research on PSD502."
Satisfactory
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."
Satisfactory
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."
Satisfactory
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 9 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.
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