This story discusses the recent FDA approval of the sunscreen mexoryl, which reportedly provides better UVA protection than sunscreens currently available over the counter in the U.S. We are told why this sunscreen is better than existing sunscreens for preventing sun damage and certain types of skin cancer, but we are not told about studies that prove the newer sunscreen does a better job than existing UVA/UVB sunscreens with a higher SPF. FDA approval was based on 28 studies, but there is still some disagreement among scientists on how to measure UVA protection and its relative value. However, data from at least one of these studies comparing mexoryl against existing sunscreens should be available and noted in this story.
The story cites two dermatologists who discuss the value of mexoryl in sunscreen, and they appropriately caution readers about continued vigilance of avoiding excessive sun exposure. The story discusses the importance of both UVB and UVA sun protection and mentions other forms of chemical and physical sunscreens. The story also notes that those in the dermatology field would like to have mexoryl in a sunscreen with a higher SPF. Currently, it will only be available in SPF 15.
The story mentions that mexoryl has been available and safely used in Europe and Canada for 15+ years, though there is no mention of potential harms of this sunscreen. FDA approval was based on studies in over 2500 patients. Side effects in these studies were not serious and infrequent; however, they should still be listed as part of this story. The most common side effects in clinical trials were: dry skin, dermatitis, redness, eczema and sunburn.
The story mentions that Mexoryl in L’oreal’s moisturizer Anthelios SX will be available for sale Oct. 1, 2006. However, the story does not provide the cost of Anthelios SX. On Canadian websites, it costs between $30 and $45 depending on SPF and size. So, it is not going to be cheap in the US.
The story does not provide the cost of Anthelios SX. The cost is between $30 and $45 depending on SPF and size on Canadian-based internet sites. So, it is not going to be cheap in the US.
The story does not provide quantification of benefit. We are told why this sunscreen is better than existing sunscreens for preventing photodamage and skin cancer, but we are not told about studies that prove this to be the case.
The story does not mention potential harms of using this new sunscreen. FDA approval was based on studies of over 2500 patients. Side effects in these studies were not serious and infrequent, however, they should be listed in this story. The most common side effects in clinical trials were: dry skin, dermatitis, redness, eczema, sunburn.
The story does not provide evidence that this sunscreen works any better than existing sunscreens with higher SPF. FDA approval of mexoryl was based on 28 studies. Data from at least one of these studies comparing mexoryl against existing sunscreens should be available and noted in this story.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. Sun protection in the form of more potent sunscreens and protective clothing is important to prevent many forms of skin cancer.
The story cites two dermatologists who discuss the value of this new sunscreen. They caution readers to be vigilant about avoiding excessive sun exposure. The story also notes that those in the dermatology field would like to have mexoryl in a sunscreen with a higher SPF. Currently, it will only be available in SPF 15.
The story discusses the importance of both UVB and UVA protection and mentions other forms of chemical and physical sunscreens. The story also mentions the importance of wearing protective clothing in addition to sunscreen, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
The story mentions that mexoryl in L’Oreal’s moisturizer Anthelios SX will be available for sale Oct. 1, 2006.
The story mentions that mexoryl has been available and safely used in Europe and Canada for 15+ years.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a press release for information. The story consults dermatologists not affiliated with the makers of Anthelios SX, as well as company representatives. The dermatologists who discuss the added benefit of the new sunscreen do not mention studies where mexoryl was proven better than existing sunscreens.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.