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

‘Honey, It’s Your Turn…’

Rating

5 Star

‘Honey, It’s Your Turn…’

Our Review Summary

We are curious about a couple of things.

Why and how were the three methods chosen as “most promising” among a dozen methods mentioned?

Is it coincidence that in the past week many stories have popped up about male contraceptive research, including a somewhat similar piece by Scientific American this same day?

 

Why This Matters

The story’s concluding line summarizes why this matters:   “given that roughly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, ‘we need to have more options for couples to be able to plan their lives.’ “

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  Cost not discussed but since the article clearly stated that the methods discussed are “at least years away,” this is understandable.

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

Satisfactory

The column presents a small amount of data on the relative effectiveness of the methods discussed (“In India, the first men to test it have had it for 20 years, with no pregnancies…;” “…ineffective in about 10% of men;”) for RISUG and hormone treatment. The story also points out that Vitamin A derivatives have not been tested in humans.

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

Satisfactory

While harms weren’t quantified, we can accept that given the clear and concise summary of what’s been shown in studies so far.

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

Satisfactory

Again, that infographic sidebar on the three methods does a nice job of presenting a synopsis of the evidence, pros and cons of various methods being researched.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering here.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The entire column was a comparison of methods.  Very nice wrapup.

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

Satisfactory

We like the left column sidebar that lists 3 “promising” methods and specifies status and availability.  Nice touch.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The column did a solid job summarizing the current status of research in this field.

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

Satisfactory

Solid, independent reporting.

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.