This article does a good job of summarizing the results of recent small study that sheds some light on what melatonin can and can not do in terms of aiding sleep. This article included a good description of the trial’s important findings about melatonin’s effects on daytime sleep and its usefulness for those needing to shift their sleeping hours to daytime.
It would have been helpful to remind readers that melatonin is sold as a dietary supplement and as such, the FDA neither approves the claims made nor monitors the content of the product.
The story didn’t mention costs of melatonin. It also didn’t mention potential harms from the use of melatonin. (It may be problematic for those taking warfarin or individuals with epilepsy.)
The article mentioned that melatonin was as effective as the prescription medications Ambien or Lunesta.
The only sources of information appear to be related to the single study mentioned and the lead author of the paper on that study. It would have been better to include input from other sleep scientists unrelated to the study.
Though melatonin is readily available, no estimates for the cost of treatment were provided.
The benefit of treatment, an extra half-hour of sleep compared with control subjects in a trial, was presented. Kudos for clearly laying out that the gain in sleep time was not helpful for all insomnia – only that from change in time zone or shift work.
No potential harms from the use of melatonin were mentioned. (It may be problematic for those taking warfarin or individuals with epilepsy.)
This article gave a clear summary of the results from a recent double-blind placebo controlled trial. However, although it stated that the study was rigorous and well designed, it failed to explain what was meant by ‘rigorous and well designed’. Nonetheless, we’ll give a satisfactory score for this criterion.
This article did not disease monger or make exaggerated claims for melatonin.
The only sources of information appear to be related to the single study mentioned and the lead author of the paper on that study.
The article mentioned that melatonin was as effective as the prescription medications Ambien or Lunesta.
The article did not mention that melatonin is sold as a dietary supplement and as such, the FDA neither approves the claims made nor monitors the content of the product.
The article reports on some new evidence for what melatonin can and can’t do in terms of sleep. The story did not present melatonin as a novel treatment but rather that the results of a recent study provided some new insight about its use.
Does not appear to be based solely or largely on a press 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