This is a very brief story (156 words), with many of the problems inherent in such briefs. It's about about an over-the-counter product, due out this summer, to help people with weight loss. It is a half strength version of orlistat, a prescription drug, and though the story implies that the weight loss with the over-the-counter version will be about the same as the prescription strength this is not supported by the scientific evidence. And no source of data to support that projection is given.
Although the story briefly mentioned clinical trials involving this product and reported on the increased weight loss when using this product in addition to a diet and exercise program, there do not appear to be any studies published in peer reviewed journals. Without that, it is impossible to weigh the strength of the evidence, something the story should have pointed out.
In addition, the story did not completely describe the side-effects associated with the use of this product.
Overall, no sources were cited. Criticisms of the over-the-counter use of orlistat are easy to find.
The story mentioned that this product will cost $50 for a 30-day supply.
The story mentioned a 5-10 pound increased weight loss over a period of six months with the use of this product. But no source is given for that projection. Is that based on use of the prescription-strength version of orlistat? If not, what is the source?
The story included a parenthetic thought about possible side effects if a low-fat diet isn't followed. But unpleasant side-effects may be experienced even with consumption of a low-fat diet.
The FDA also advises that because nutrients may be lost, people using alli are recommended to take a multivitamin.
Although the story mentioned clinical trials involving this product and reported on the increased weight loss when using this product in addition to a diet and exercise program, there do not appear to be any studies published in peer reviewed journals. Without that, it is impossible to weigh the strength of the evidence, something the story should have pointed out.
This story did not engage in disease mongering.
No sources were cited. Criticisms of the over-the-counter use of orlistat are easy to find.
There is no mention of other treatment options for weight loss.
The story mentioned that the product is expected to be available this summer.
The story was clear that alli is an over-the-counter strength of orlistat,a medication that has previously been available by prescription only.
There is no clear source for the material presented in this story; it is therefore not possible to eliminate the possibility that it was based exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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.