Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

Dessert, Laid-Back and Legal

Rating

5 Star

Categories

Tags

Dessert, Laid-Back and Legal

Our Review Summary

The story offers good context – starting with a recollection of over-the-counter melatonin claims that were “the rage” among frequent fliers back in the ’90s.  And reminding readers that “promoters of these are appealing to people who think it’s better to do things outside of the medical establishment.”

 

Why This Matters

It can be a public service to do this kind of reporting when new fad products are promoted without evidence of safety or effectiveness.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story includes some pricing estimates for these products.

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

Satisfactory

The story is clear that – despite the claims made by some who stand to profit – there is no quantifiable information about benefits documented about these products.  And there’s this closing skepticism from Dr. Lewy: “he was not sure that their other purportedly sleep-inducing ingredients like valerian root work and partly because food delays rather than hastens the absorption of melatonin.”

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

Satisfactory

The story explains that dessert makers “are marketing their products as a harmless way to promote relaxation.”

While harms are not quantified, it’s clear from the story’s discussions about regulatory questions why that’s impossible to do right now. The harms mentioned are largely hypothetical in that there isn’t good evidence documenting these problems.

But the story does a good job in painting, with broad strokes, what might go wrong if one uses these products.

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

Satisfactory

The story shows how evidence is elusive, partially due to the lack of regulatory clarity about the products in question.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering in this story.

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

Satisfactory

Several independent experts – independent of the product manufacturers – were quoted.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  It isn’t possible to compare existing alternatives to these products because there is no information documenting efficacy of the products.

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

Satisfactory

The widening availability of these products is eminently clear from the story.  And the fact that melatonin has not approved by the FDA as a food additive is explained.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The relative novelty of these products – and their spread – is clear from the story.

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

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story did NOT rely on a news release.

Total Score: 9 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.