NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Safely Slathered Up

Rating

3 Star

Safely Slathered Up

Our Review Summary

Many Americans believe a sunscreen can both bronze the skin and protect sun-lovers from skin cancers. This story reinforces this belief by reporting on new sunscreens that contain special ingredients said to block more of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.  How good is the evidence to buttress the story’s main point—that newer formulations are better than old? Did researchers arrive at this conclusion after comparing the incidence of melanoma in a population of high-risk individuals randomly assigned to use either “new” formulations or “old” ones, then follow them for many years? Or did they study mice in a laboratory, as in one recent Australian experiment? (Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):408-15.)  In other words, can sun-lovers slather on the new sunscreens with impunity? Or would a word of caution be in order?  The questions are important because, in an apparent paradox, increased use of sunscreen has coincided with the spiraling incidence of skin cancer. Is this because sunscreens are merely used improperly (as one expert notes in the story)? Or is it more complicated than that: Do sunscreens have inherent weaknesses? The news story would have served its readers better by telling them more about the quality of evidence to support its rosy outlook. Such an analysis might provide well-founded reassurance about the new sunscreen formulations—or it might instead suggest that the answers to some questions remain unknown. Whatever the case, readers deserve to know.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although the story suggests that competition in the marketplace for new sunscreen formulations is vigorous, it makes no mention of costs.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Although one source quoted in the story quantifies the potential harm of improper use of sunscreen— inadequate skin coverage causes “25% less value”—there is no attempt to quantify the reported benefit of slathering up with new, specially formulated sunscreens.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article mentions potential harms associated with older sunscreen formulations (e.g. ashy color, ineffective when exposed to light)—but says nothing about potential harms of the newer versions that are the story’s focus. Do they cause allergic or photoallergic reactions? Could they give sun-lovers unwarranted confidence in the lotions’ prowess? In an apparent paradox, increased use of sunscreen has been associated with the spiraling incidence of skin cancer. Is this because sunscreens are used improperly (as the article suggests)? Or do sunscreens have inherent weaknesses as well?

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The news story fails to comment on the quality of evidence to support its contention that special ingredients unique to a select group of sunscreens protect people from the harmful consequences of ultraviolet rays. Does the evidence match the hype? Did researchers arrive at this conclusion after comparing the incidence of melanoma in a population of high-risk individuals randomly assigned to slather up with either “new” formulations or “old” ones, then follow them for many years? Or did they study mice in a laboratory, as in one recent Australian experiment? (Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):408-15.)

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is persuasive evidence linking exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays to melanoma, a formidable and sometimes fatal skin cancer, as well as to skin wrinkling and age spots, in certain individuals. The article mentions this link once, but does not dwell on it.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The news story quoted two sources from academic institutions. It’s difficult to know whether either individual has a potential conflict of interest.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story fails to note other measures sun-lovers can take to protect themselves from UV rays. These include the use of protective clothing and avoiding midday sun. (Dermatol Clin. 2002 Oct;20(4):601-6.)

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story focuses largely on the increasing availability of new sunscreen formulations that are believed to protect sun lovers from harmful ultraviolet rays.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

This article explains that some sunscreens have been around a long time and others have recently entered the market, formulated with new and supposedly better ingredients.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

It is unclear whether the article relied solely or largely on a press release.

Total Score: 4 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.