NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Don’t Stay Up Waiting For A Pill To Fight Jet Lag

Rating

4 Star

Categories

Tags

Don’t Stay Up Waiting For A Pill To Fight Jet Lag

Our Review Summary

Only 250 words but with 5 links to offer more context to the discerning reader.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No discussion of cost, which we wish had been included.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  There was no quantification of benefit – so we can’t give a satisfactory score.  But we also don’t feel an unsatisfactory score is warranted since the story made clear that “regulators weren’t buying the evidence put forward by the company to prove the medicine’s benefits in treating travelers’ “excessive sleepiness” outweighed its risks.”

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Solid job reviewing most common side effects and links to other, rare but life threatening problem.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Given the brevity of the piece, the evaluation of evidence – and of the history of this drug – was good.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease-mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

We always look for an independent perspective.  Granted, the story was based on an FDA review.  But we really only got a quote from a company statement.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  There was no discussion of other approaches to jet lag.  But we acknowledge that this short blog piece was written to address the news of the day – the new regulatory review.  So this news – in this news format – need not try to do it all. As stated above, we appreciate how it gave context and history even with its tight 250-word space.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story explains that Nuvigil is already approved for some uses but not for jet lag.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

In a brief piece, the story gave a good history of this drug and now its second “thumbs down” from regulators on the application for marketing approval for jet lag.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story didn’t rely solely on a news release, but, rather, demonstrated a grasp of the history of this product and its regulatory review.

Total Score: 6 of 8 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.