Our Review Summary
Sunscreen in a pill sounds very appealing – no more messy sunscreen. But to say that this supplement is still only experimental would be an understatement. To date, the only research that has been conducted has been in very small numbers of people (and animals) in experimental conditions, not the real world. Furthermore, little is known about how the pill compares to sunscreen. This story does a fair job of reporting on this approach while providing the reader with some cautionary information.
The story does mention that the supplement is available over the counter and describes the cost of treatment – $60 for 60 pills. The story should have compared this cost to sunscreen.
Although the story does mention the obvious alternative – sunscreen – it does not mention protective clothing, umbrellas, hats, or just staying out of the sun. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force endorses many interventions to reduce risk of sun-related cancers, all of which are less costly alternatives to the dietary supplement covered in this article.
The story mentions two small but ‘rigorously designed’ studies, but this is not sufficient. To say they were small would be an understatement. Each study had 10 patients or fewer and were exposed to light under experimental conditions, not the real world and the results were not blinded. So the claims on which this article was based may be significantly overstated, although published in a peer-reviewed journal. The article relies heavily on information provided by the lead author of the study, whose work, at least, was funded by the manufacturer. We do not know that the other expert turned to for evaluation of this product is devoid of financial interest in this product. It would have been preferable to quote a spokesperson for an academic society or non-profit organization to provide some additional perspectives. The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. The story says that “so far no negative side effects have been reported”. This is insufficient information on the harms (or potential harms) of the supplement.
Because this is a “dietary supplement” the company avoids the scrutiny of the FDA. That was not mentioned in the story, but should have been.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story does mention the cost of treatment – $60 for 60 pills. The story should have compared this cost to the alternative – sunscreen.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment.
Not Satisfactory
The story says that “so far no negative side effects have been reported.” This is insufficient.
Not Satisfactory
The story mentions two small but ‘rigorously designed’ studies, but this is not sufficient. To say they were small would be an understatement. Each study had 10 patients or fewer and were exposed to light under experimental conditions – not the real world – and the results were not blinded.
Satisfactory
The story does not overstate the risk of skin cancer. By focusing on sunburn, rather than skin cancer, the story avoids disease mongering.
Satisfactory
The story quotes two physicians, one of whom is the lead author on the articles and was funded by the manufacturer of the product. It would have been preferable to quote a spokesperson for an academic society or non-profit organization to provide some additional perspectives.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story does mention the obvious alternative – sunscreen, it does not mention protective clothing, umbrellas, hats, or just staying out of the sun period.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that this supplement is available over the counter.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not comment on the novelty of this idea. Is oral sun protectant novel? The story should not leave it up to the reader to research whether this is a new idea or not.
Not Applicable
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole or main source of information.
Total Score: 4 of 9 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