The story describes the condition of dry eyes, including what it is, how it may affect people, who is affected, and what treatments might be tried (although the information on available treatments is cursory). The story misses an opportunity to develop treatment information. Story limitations include no clinical trial data on specific treatments, including whether any of the treatments mentioned are effective (other than they “help”) and whether one is any better than another. Info is also lacking on what exactly is in the prescription eye-drops, other than to say an “anti-inflammatory” medication. Readers are told how often one drug must be taken “for maximum effect,” but we’re not told what that maximum effect may be. Is it complete relief? Partial? Readers should also be aware that long-term safety of the prescription eye drops may be unknown if the duration of studies used for FDA approval were of short duration (a few months). Other limitations include lack of information about side effects, including short- or long-term side effects, and treatment costs. Last, the prescription eye drop treatment strategy is endorsed by a physician with ties to the manufacturer without attempt to obtain more objective input. If asked, many geriatricians would likely acknowledge that dry eyes is a common and bothersome symptom that can be easily managed and controlled with over-the-counter moisturizing drops. Yet, this story has elements of disease-mongering, telling readers about almost 5-million Americans over age 50 with symptoms ranging “from annoying to life-altering.” How many have simply annoying symptoms and may need nothing more than over-the-counter drops? No mention is made of the costs of any of the named approaches.
No mention of costs.
No evidence, including quantifiable benefits. The story does not
state what any of the treatments actually do or how they help.
No discussion of benefits or harms.
There simply is no evidence provided.
This story has elements of disease-mongering because the condition is not serious, although it may be
troublesome to those who have it. We have no idea whether taking prescription eye drops helps any more than any other
treatment.
When talking about
treatment, the article quotes a physician who recommends treatment with prescription eye drops and discloses that she is also
funded by the maker of prescription eye drops. Two other sources are interviewed.
The story lists existing treatments for dry eyes, but no mention is made of possible advantages or disadvantages
of options.
Story states treatments are available over-the-counter or as
prescription.
No mention of whether any of
the multiple treatments listed at the end of the story are new.
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.
You might also like