The story also made it clear that these were placebo-controlled trials that used relevant clinical endpoints, thus meeting some of the key requirements for this criterion. On the other hand, the article failed to provide some basic but important details about the design of the two studies that are at the heart of the story. Examples:
We’re on the fence with this one. In general, a story needs to provide some kind of description of the size of a study to be judged satisfactory on this criterion, but the story does provide readers with enough information to meet our main requirement.
The article is up-front about where this information is coming from and the potential conflicts the sources may have. Still, the story relies heavily on comments from company representatives or researchers involved with the study. The only comment from a truly independent observer doesn’t address the research itself and is about the general need for non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes. A close one, but we’ll call it satisfactory.
The story mentions low-dose hormone replacement therapy, which is one option for particularly bothersome hot flashes. It could have also mentioned lifestyle changes such as keeping cool and avoiding dietary triggers, which are useful approaches for some women. The story also notes that almost half the women in the placebo arm of one of the trials reported improvement. It would have been helpful to readers to highlight that fact and put the drug results in context with the fact that women feel better after a few weeks even without any treatment. On balance, the story does enough to fulfill the criterion.
The oblique reference to this drug perhaps being "one step closer to becoming the first approved nonhormonal treatment for menopause-related hot flashes" is likely to leave many readers unsure about whether this drug is not yet available or whether it is just not approved specifically for treatment of hot flashes.
The standard formul gabapentin, which is approved for treatment of seizures and pain, can be prescribed off label for treatment of hot flashes even though it isn’t FDA approved for this use. (In fact, Pfizer has recently been slapped with large fines for promoting unapproved off-label uses of the drug.) However, the slow-release form of the drug discussed here is not available commercially. Although it calls the new drug "experimental," the story doesn’t explicitly address the availability of the immediate-release vs. slow-release forms of the drug. The article should have been clearer that the FDA has not approved this new slow release form, and that it is not available.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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