For the millions of women who take hormone replacement therapy to treat menopausal symptoms, the news that the therapy may damage their hearing may be alarming. Other women who take birth control pills that contain progestin may also be wondering if they are also putting themselves at risk. However, by no means is this recent finding conclusive and this story does little to clear up the confusion.
By focusing on “hearing damage” without describing the degree of loss or explaining whether the amount of loss is clinically significant or not, the story crosses the line into disease mongering. The story does not quantify the harms of HRT in terms of hearing loss so the reader cannot know whether the amount of loss is significant to the individual. Furthermore, the story does not adequately describe the nature of the clinical evidence. The story does not explicitly state important details about the design of the recent study. For example, was it prospective or retrospective? The story leaves it up to the reader to infer this detail from a quote from an expert. The story should have been more clear.
In addition, the story does not mention the other harms of HRT such as heart attack, stroke or blood clot. However, the story does a good job of quoting multiple, independent sources who provide some much needed perspective.
This criterion is not applicable in this story.
The story does not quantify the harms of HRT in terms of hearing loss. Furthermore, the story does not explain whether the amount of loss is significant to the individual.
The story does not mention the other harms of HRT such as heart attack, stroke or blood clot.
The story does not adequately describe the nature of the clinical evidence. The story does not explicitly state important details about the design of the recent study. For example, was it prospective or retrospective? The story leaves it up to the reader to infer this detail from a quote from an expert. The story should have been more clear on the study design.
By focusing on “hearing damage” without describing the degree of loss or explaining whether the amount of loss is clinically significant or not, the story crosses the line into disease mongering.
The story does a good job of quoting multiple, independent sources.
The story stated: “A study of 124 postmenopausal women found that those taking hormone replacement therapy that included progestin had poorer speech understanding than women who were not taking hormones or who were using estrogen only.” So it at least nodded in the direction of other options, although not in any depth. Nonethless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is clearly available.
HRT is clearly an existing therapy.
Because the story quoted several independent sources, it appears that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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