Don’t Stay Up Waiting For A Pill To Fight Jet Lag
Reviewed By
Rating
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
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of cost, which we wish had been included.
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.”
Satisfactory
Solid job reviewing most common side effects and links to other, rare but life threatening problem.
Satisfactory
Given the brevity of the piece, the evaluation of evidence – and of the history of this drug – was good.
Satisfactory
There was no disease-mongering.
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.
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.
Satisfactory
The story explains that Nuvigil is already approved for some uses but not for jet lag.
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.
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.
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