AP story on skin patch sweat monitor may make readers wonder: News or marketing?

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The cost of this patch or of a comparison approach involving sending absorbent pads to a lab aren’t addressed.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t give quantified benefits because there aren’t any–and it should have made that point much stronger versus expanding on speculative uses for the device. We’re told a study “found it worked on sweaty bicyclists, sticking even during a long-distance race in Arizona.”  So what does that mean in clinical terms? Nothing yet. The purpose of the study was to show that the patch would stick and collect good data, not to show that it generates a health benefit.

The story also allowed speculation of benefits beyond electrolyte monitoring, too:

(Researcher John A.) Rogers envisions more sophisticated use of such devices, such as real-time monitoring of how the body adjusts during military training, or even to screen people for diseases such as diabetes or cystic fibrosis.

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

Not Satisfactory

The study doesn’t contain data on adverse effects, and the story doesn’t touch on potential harms. Have patches been tested for skin irritation, for example? More broadly, could skin patches give athletes a false sense of security, prompting them to ignore physical symptoms, or distract them from the basics of proper training, nutrition and hydration? That’s not addressed.

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

Not Satisfactory

The paragraph mentions one study limitation: that the tested patches were capable of taking only one measurement versus taking multiple measurements over time, which would be essential for monitoring. The story misses other important limitations. For example, it says the patches can measure such things as sweat loss, acidity, and levels of chloride, glucose and lactate, but it does not explain that because a substance is present in sweat does not mean it is a good clinical indicator of what’s going on inside a person’s body. Further, there’s no discussion of whether this device is practical or useful for athletes.

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

Not Satisfactory

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story does state that the patch was shown in the study to be just as good as a pad sent to a laboratory for analysis in terms of collecting sweat samples. But there’s no comparison with other alternatives for monitoring health measures such as blood tests, and in the case of dehydration, good old-fashioned thirst.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t describes the steps that need to be taken for this technology to become available to consumers and clinicians. Beyond calling the device “experimental,” it gives no sense as to how close the device is to being marketed.