This article presents the results of several studies examining whether antidepressants are effective in reducing hot flashes in menopausal women. The article avoids overstating the results of these studies and provides information from skeptics that many of these results could be the result of the placebo effect and have nothing to do with treatment.
For some women hot flashes can impede on quality of life during menopause. Since many doctors and women are leery about using hormone replacement therapy to alleviate hot flashes, other drugs are being investigated.
The article does discuss how much Lexapro – the antidepressant mentioned in the article – costs.
Adequate quantitative description of the extent and timing of hot flash reduction for the treatment group. Describing the response in placebo group as “occurring more slowly and to a lesser degree” provides an adequate sense of the difference. And story provided quantitative comparison for the outcome of insomnia between placebo and treatment groups.
The article did discuss some of the side effects of antidepressants.
The article did a good job of putting the results of the study into perspective with quotes from scientists who were skeptical of the findings.
The article did not commit disease mongering of hot flashes.
The article does appear to use independent sources including interviewing Dr Robert Freedman, a psychiatrist who was skeptical of the true benefits of using antidepressants to treat hot flashes.
The article mentions at the very end other remedies for treating hot flashes besides prescription drugs.
The article made it clear that the use of antidepressants to treat hot flashes was off-label use of the drug. Even though the article presented results from studies, it is not clear how widespread is the off-label use of antidepressants to treat hot flashes.
The article did state that antidepressants are not FDA approved to be used to treat hot flashes and that doctors prescribing this are doing so off-label.
The article does not appear to rely solely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.
Comments are closed.
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