Only 250 words but with 5 links to offer more context to the discerning reader.
No discussion of cost, which we wish had been included.
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.”
Solid job reviewing most common side effects and links to other, rare but life threatening problem.
Given the brevity of the piece, the evaluation of evidence – and of the history of this drug – was good.
There was no disease-mongering.
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.
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.
The story explains that Nuvigil is already approved for some uses but not for jet lag.
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.
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.