‘Honey, It’s Your Turn…’
Reviewed By
Rating
‘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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Satisfactory
No disease mongering here.
Satisfactory
Good sourcing.
Satisfactory
The entire column was a comparison of methods. Very nice wrapup.
Satisfactory
We like the left column sidebar that lists 3 “promising” methods and specifies status and availability. Nice touch.
Satisfactory
The column did a solid job summarizing the current status of research in this field.
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.
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